Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran

[cannon_fodder]

This is the third measure I have heard of recently denying someone a chance to speak... what gives?

[zstyles]

Autism : Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, DDurant, was successful in amending House Bill 2531 to have insurance companies cover autism.

Dubbed "Nick's Law," the measure had failed to get a hearing in the House.

Gumm believes, though, that the benefits would outweigh the costs and that any costs would be negligible.

Sen. Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow, said insurance companies would pass the costs on to consumers.

(Also on a side note the guy opposing it is in the insurance business)

Occupation: Insurance
Education: Northeasten State University, Education, Education degree
Legislative Experience: Senate Member, 2006 - present
Hometown: Broken Arrow, OK

brownb@oksenate.gov

[zstyles]

From the Norman Transcript..

"On a more somber note, he said the proposal to force insurance companies to cover costs associated with autism was handled badly. The chairman of the committee hearing the matter avoided taking public comments from parents who waited hours to speak.

"It deserved an up or down vote. It didn't get its day in court. It wasn't debated on its merits," he said. "I thought that was a low point in our legislative system."

[mrhaskellok]

Why in the world should Uncle Sam tell any insurance agency they have to accept any patient or be forced to treat any specific disease?  I choose my insurance plans based on what services they provide.  If the risk outweighs the payout, why do we want to force them to take on the responsibility?  Are we not simply giving them the lucky pot of gold?  If they "do what they are told" from the government, wont they simply ask for handouts (i.e. "free" taxpayer $$$) later?  

I mean, that is like forcing your insurance company to insure your house in a flood plain, only to watch it get flooded along with all the other houses and then Uncle Sam gets 1) Blamed for the house being there  2) blamed for the flood itself  and 3) forced to foot the bill anyway.  Wait, that sounds familiar.  Hmmm

I have a huge heart for anyone stricken with diseases, but if their parents truly need help financially, then aren't there welfare systems in place for those kids?  

I accept the fact that I may be looking at this all wrong but I believe that we are simply going to disagree right down the line of "I believe in Universal Health care" and "I don't".  those that believe in UH believe that we all should share the costs of everyones health problems.  Forcing an insurance company to pay for anything is simply forcing them to charge me for a risk(expenditure) that according to them was not worth the extra business(revenue).  

Last I checked the constitution didn't mention the government is in the insurance business.  Do we need Uncle Sam to tell Target to carry XXXL clothes too because someone may need that size undies?  Come on, THANKFULLY, we live in a country that still (barely) comprehends the fact that the vast majority of society benefits by simply letting supply and demand work. If you doubt the merit to the system, either travel internationally abroad more or let me tell you a story or too about how other nations work and why they never have and never will be super powers.  


Its all really about where the dollars are going to come from, but with this bill, the parents of autistic kids simply want you to pay for their child's care.

It is very important to note this one simple thing...if the insurance company WANTS to (makes good business sense) cover treatment of autism, I have no problem with it.  I choose my company based on price and services.  Jack with that equilibrium and both suffer.

(If you are wondering where all this "hate speech" is coming from don't worry, I get to blame it all on my traumatic times in Iraq, so there.)  [][][]

[mrhaskellok]

To clarify also, there is a market for autistic treatment and those parents should ban together, run some numbers and petition about 1000 insurance companies and I bet, I just bet they might luck out.  Once a company sees $$$ (large group of parents willing to pay premiums) someone is going to budge.  Just don't use my tax dollars to make it happen.  Use your "back and brains" as my grandpa used to say.

[zstyles]

Well that is very narrow minded of you. ...I guess saving "6 million" a year would make or break an insurance company...I am full fledged republican..and don't agree in taxing anyone..but this is NOT a tax..is something that 19 other states have agreed SHOULD be done and is for the children....

[Breadburner]

I don't know why an insurance company should be forced to cover a pre-existing condition.....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

Well that is very narrow minded of you. ...I guess saving "6 million" a year would make or break an insurance company...I am full fledged republican..and don't agree in taxing anyone..but this is NOT a tax..is something that 19 other states have agreed SHOULD be done and is for the children....

I disagree.

By forcing coverage without additional cost, they are passing that cost on to all other people on the insurance.  When done by government dictate, that is basically a tax.

If the State thinks this is care that needs to be tendered, then the State should pay for it.  Not force other people to pay for it.

Unless, as I have mention previously, it is a situation of bad faith in which the insurance companies are dropping people with autistic children and/or burying language in that regard in the policies.  Then right the wrong.

I understand people with autistic children need more help, but I'm not sure it is the proper place for the government to dictate what companies have to render that help.

[mrhaskellok]

Yeah, I agree with CF...if there they are simply being criminal with their policies, then by all means, go get em!  

And don't end your sentence with, "its for the children".  No where in the Constitution does it say that if its for the "children" its ok, otherwise "these rules apply".   I think children are great, have one and one on the way, but I believe that if this great experiment is to work called America, then we have to learn to live by certain rules, rules tested by time to be more beneficial over the long term and impact lives more positively of the course of history.

Having seen what can happen in other nations when the government gets involved managing corporations, you get corporatism.  Then you are only one step away from a few very bad forms of government.

[zstyles]

So someone is born with this...its pre-exisiting? That makes no sense...

Insurance companies will cover the treatments as long as it isn't classified as AUTISM because so little is known about this...but 1 out of 150 kids is now being diagnosed with this...there are hundreds and thousands of kids who are going without treatment which when they get older will come back around...I can see though that most people on this forum either don't have kids or have no need to discuss this or give it a real compssionate thought...very narrow minded...

"Hey it doesn't affect me so I say screw you"...

The WHOLE POINT of this thread was not weather insurance should or should not cover it..but why the republican's refused to even HEAR the bill and turned away parents, refuses still to take phone calls..and refuses to see people or make appointments on the issue....

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

So someone is born with this...its pre-exisiting? That makes no sense...

Insurance companies will cover the treatments as long as it isn't classified as AUTISM because so little is known about this...but 1 out of 150 kids is now being diagnosed with this...there are hundreds and thousands of kids who are going without treatment which when they get older will come back around...I can see though that most people on this forum either don't have kids or have no need to discuss this or give it a real compssionate thought...very narrow minded...

"Hey it doesn't affect me so I say screw you"...

The WHOLE POINT of this thread was not weather insurance should or should not cover it..but why the republican's refused to even HEAR the bill and turned away parents, refuses still to take phone calls..and refuses to see people or make appointments on the issue....

So now we make to the nut cuttin...This is a partisan issue and a shot at Repulicans....Not to mention the fact I think your numbers are off 1 in 150 I doubt it.....Was it not 1 in 100 earlier...

[cannon_fodder]

1/150 is the number I have found.

I have children.  I gave the issue serious thought.  I am not a Republican.  And I have concluded that based on the information I have I think it is inappropriate to force private companies to pay for medical treatment, as outlined above.

And, while I think people should be heard, I understand that the legislature can not hear everyone with a voice on the issue.  I can not say if it was or was not appropriate in this instance, but if that is the basis of your complaint I am not too very concerned.  

Though I am concerned that it appears to be a recent habit of the Oklahoma legislature.  And refusing to make appointments and phone calls only aggravates the issue.  BUT, perhaps he has made up his mind and a meeting would be a PC waste of his, your, and tax payer time.  Not an excuse, but perhaps a cold reason.

If my conclusion makes me uncompassionate, unwilling to give it thought, and narrow minded in your view, then so be it.  I did research on the issue, asked several questions, read various articles, reviewed other opinions here, and came to my conclusion.  IMHO, that is the definition of giving it thought.

[Gaspar]

I don't see what the problem is.  If you have a child with autism you disclose it to your insurance company.  Your insurance company can either refuse to cover that condition or raise your rates to account for the additional risk exposure.  

If your insurance company refuses to cover the condition, you just go get another insurance carrier. . .

OOOh wait!  That's the way it used to work, before people felt entitled to free/cheap healthcare coverage.  Now that we have one foot into government regulated health care, we look to government to make these decisions.  I see now.  It makes so much more sense.

Wait until we have full-blown gub-care  and they refuse to pay for chest X-rays unless you are over age 52 (recently adopted by one of our local "almost government" insurance carriers).

We demanded that our employers take control of our health insurance buying decisions.  We demanded that the government help to regulate our insurance carriers.  Now we are demanding that the government take over all of  our healthcare decisions.  

We no longer have any right to B!tch.

I feel for families that have to suffer under this system.  Why do we insist on making it worse?

[zstyles]

Actually no..I am a registered republican..vote GWB last election..sorry if I am just going by memory on those ..I do believe it was 1 in 150..sorry if I made my case weaker..I can go back to 1 in 100 if you like lol!

[zstyles]

http://youtube.com/user/brentleach2k3

This might be a good place to check out..