Rep Ron Peterson continues to issue ignorant statements

Under Intense Pressure, Peterson Steadfastly Defends Economic Freedom

Please read the paragraph in bold print to really see the window to this man's soul and that he really does not care for the most vulnerable members of our society, the children with special needs.

May 15, 2008

State Rep. Ron Peterson is "not willing to make insurance even less affordable for those who are already having trouble getting and keeping basic health insurance coverage."

During this legislative session, state Rep. Ron Peterson (R-Tulsa) has taken a lot of criticism for his conservative (in the traditional sense of the word) position on government imposition of health insurance mandates.

Peterson has stood firm against a mandate for autism coverage-understandably desired by parents of children with the condition, and pressed by legislative Democrats, with the help of a largely sympathetic news media.

The agency which administers state government insurance programs estimated the autism mandate would increase insurance costs by about $6 million. Peterson says analysts tell him the impact could be worse-a cost multiplier of four to ten percent.

But an argument from principle is, for him, more fundamental than clashes over costs.

Do You Believe in Free Enterprise, or Not?

In an interview last week, Peterson told OCPA that "the controversy comes from a starting point, where you are philosophically opposed to government interference in economic activity. I remember the creed I used to recite as a Jaycee, wherein we stated our belief in free enterprise. What was so self-evident then is under attack here at the capitol every day."

Like other libertarians and conservatives, Peterson believes "markets work. Competition works and that will address the issues of health care and insurance better than mandates. Mandates in the area of health insurance? I'm dealing with them all the time as a committee chairman."

Peterson said this year "at least a dozen" mandates were actively discussed or introduced. As he explains, "Mandates come at a cost, and that cost gets passed on to all consumers. In health insurance, we're in a crisis in terms of affordability, and it seems foolish to me to be entertaining mandates that lead to higher costs."

Pressed to elaborate, he continued, "If we're going to consider mandates at all, it seems each one should stand on its own merits." Peterson advanced a bill that would have required "actuarial analysis for any mandate legislation. I thought we should be careful on any and all mandates, so that if one is considered it's done from a position of knowledge, not emotion." But the measure was killed by Senate Democrats.

Proposals along the same line have actually drawn a sympathetic response from state Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland, who understands the business of insurance.

The clearest sign that the attacks on Peterson are political, rather than principled, is that the same politicians bashing him never raise the issue, at least not publicly, with her.

"How can it equate that a mandate would not cost?" Peterson asks. "Because risk is spread, proponents argue this would not increase costs. But every mandate has a cost." The wrenching issue of insurance coverage for autism aside, the Council on Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the typical mandate raises costs an average of one percent.

Quarrel with that estimate or not, but markets always respond to costs and to regulation, whether we want them to or not. Aside from cost disputes, there are questions about the efficacy of the specific autism mandate being advanced at the moment.

"What's being suggested is clinically unproven," Peterson said. "The medical profession has stated that there's no reason to believe behavioral therapy is any more effective than anything else. The results are described as marginal in any case, and these individuals will be wards of the state in any case. So you'd have the cost without any benefit, as best we can see."

At the state legislature, is the problem fiscal and medical ignorance, or partisan politics? "It's a combination of both those things," Peterson said. "Legislators are geared, we are wired, to please constituents and to please those who ask us for things, to say yes. We are ill-equipped to withstand this kind of pressure.

And, there is no reward or little reward for saying no. People want, and need, relief. I understand that. But the only way to deal with issues like mandates is to arm yourself with knowledge and understand there are consequences, sometimes serious consequences, that cause more harm than good."

Mandates Increase the Number of Uninsured Specifically, he says, "One consequence of increasing mandates is clear: There are proportionately more uninsured people than there were before. Small business clients who want to provide health insurance can no longer afford it. I can't go along with such a mandate, especially when we are in a full-blown crisis in terms of basic coverage."

How many lobbyists and citizens are roaming the halls of the legislature demanding more mandates-or taxes or regulations or interference in the economy-versus how many are defending economic freedom?

"The answer is simple," Peterson said. "There are very few out here at the capitol defending market principles and limited government. I'd say the proportion is about nine out of 10 are in the first category. And, that's probably an under-estimate. The people who will be uninsured if we pass this or many mandates like it, I guarantee you they will never be heard. They are, from a political standpoint, unrepresented.

In general, the special interests are well represented. The taxpayers are underrepresented. "Our leadership is not prepared to pass a mandate given the crisis we face in access to insurance. This is a philosophical objection, and an honest one."

Peterson continued: "With health care in general, the government has set rules that must be observed. I accept that is where we are. But there are already some 30 mandates on the books. Instead of creating more, we need to bring consumerism into the system, a sense of allowing individuals to control their own destiny. We should allow more options.

"For the most part, now, those with coverage have either self-insurance of a sort that allows lower-cost insurance premiums to protect primarily against catastrophic events, or they have standard policies with coverage and co-pays. Most of the products are non-differential. To make an analogy, most of those covered are either walking or they're driving a Lexus. We need a greater range of choices, to let consumers drive the market instead of government."

Looking to the future, Peterson said he will not change his basic principles, but he reflects, "As for families who face conditions like autism, I have great compassion for them. I'm just not willing to make insurance even less affordable for those who are already having trouble getting and keeping basic health insurance coverage."

Profiles in Courage

OCPA believes in freedom-economic freedom and educational freedom. This spring we have spotlighted Democratic legislators for their truly courageous leadership on the issue of school choice.

For standing up to the regnant assumption that virtually every human problem requires a government solution, and for bringing the party of conservatives along with him, we're pleased to recognize Rep. Ron Peterson as a profile in courage.

Edmond Sun editorial

Autism bill not so bad
The Edmond Sun
The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — Nick’s Law, a bill in the Oklahoma Senate that would mandate insurance coverage for the medical treatment of autism, continues to generate dueling press releases from both political parties.

The latest releases stem from Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, who authored Senate Bill 1537, and from Rep. Ron Peterson, the House member who refused to allow a committee hearing on the bill, effectively stalling it in the House.

Gumm, D-Durant, said he believes Peterson, R-Broken Arrow, does not understand the crisis proportions of autism in Oklahoma, while Peterson says Gumm doesn’t understand an actuarial study the senator provided trying to show the mandate will not dramatically increase insurance rates.

The two men disagree on what the cost impact of the legislation will be to insurance consumers. Gumm contends it’s a 1 percent increase while Peterson estimates it to be at a 5.22 percent increase.

To read more, click here.

Rep Mike Brown's press statement

State of Oklahoma
House of Representatives

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 23, 2008

Representative Mike Brown
State Capitol Building Rm. 539B
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405-557-7408

OKLAHOMA CITY (May 23rd, 2008) A state legislator released a statement regarding Senate Concurrent Resolution 83 and the refusal by House Leadership to hear “Nick’s Law.”

“It is very hypocritical of the Legislature to commission another study about healthcare and not pass important healthcare legislation that could potentially change the lives of hundreds of Oklahomans,” said Representative Mike Brown, D- Tahlequah. “We do a lot of talking in the Legislature. It is time to back up that talk with some action that will help those that we serve.”

SCR 83, by Representative Ron Peterson, R- Broken Arrow, creates a task force and advisory committee to study healthcare reforms. This comes after weeks of House Republicans refusing to hear important healthcare legislation, such as “Nick’s Law”, which requires insurance companies to cover costs associated with autism.
Enough legislators promised to vote for this measure “if it makes it to the floor.” This has been the response all session long, only to be denied these last days that opportunity by the same who promised.

This last ditch effort to save face by trotting out a resolution declaring we should “talk more” about doing something is duplicitous. The parents and grandparents, along with others who have fought this fight all session, can plainly see through all of the lip service they have received.

The very purpose of the task force is to make recommendations relating to the problem of those without health insurance and “to define the role of the federal and state government, the private sector and the not for profit sector in reducing the number of Oklahomans without health insurance”.

The very people this resolution affects are not represented on this study. The study is stacked with hospitals, healthcare providers, insurance companies, and political think tanks. There is no representation from any consumer or advocate group. Labor has become the bridge and the advocate for the underrepresented, underinsured, and uninsured which includes parents, retiree’s, children, teachers and state employees.

“Since we can’t pass imperative healthcare reforms this Session or allow the voice of the people to speak, what chance do these children’s voices have of being heard from such a stacked deck?” asked Brown.

The Legislature worked until midnight Thursday night and still refused a few precious minutes of that time to hear a reform that will help Oklahoma's children. Friday, the last day for bills to be heard another 30 minutes break was taken so legislators could review new items added to the calendar and the last day's deadline extended until midnight.

The House can take up ‘Nick’s Law’ today. Now is not the time to waste taxpayer dollars by stalling, standing around and requesting yet another study group. The people of Oklahoma deserve more than this.”

Senator Gumm - Peterson shows a "Lack of Understand" About Autism Crisis

Thursday, May 15, 2008
Senator Gumm: Peterson Shows "Lack of Understanding" About Autism Crisis

OKLAHOMA CITY – An analysis by Rep. Ron Peterson of an actuarial study on “Nick’s Law” shows the representative’s “serious lack of understanding” about the autism crisis, according to Senator Jay Paul Gumm.

“Rep. Peterson may know his former profession – insurance – but his analysis of the actuarial study we provided to him shows he simply does not understand the autism crisis,” said Gumm, a Democrat from Durant who has fought for passage of autism insurance.

“Every autistic child is different with different needs. To suggest that every autistic child presents the same exposure to the insurance industry is flat wrong and not borne out by the experience in other states – or the experience of parents of autistic children.”

The key premise of Peterson’s news release was that the study, provided by Gumm to House leaders earlier this week, did not reflect that every autistic child would take the maximum benefit allowed under “Nick’s Law.”

Peterson’s estimate of a 5.22 percent increase in rates has not happened in any state with an autism insurance law. Further, the fiscal impact statement on state employees’ insurance – touted by Peterson as justification for killing “Nick’s Law” – did not reflect anything more than a 1 percent impact on claim payouts.

“I guess the question is: ‘Which is it? One percent or more than 5 percent?” Gumm asked. “The numbers from other states’ experience, as well as the numbers from Mr. Bouder’s study, have all been consistent: one percent or less impact.

“This latest release smells of desperation, and is nothing more than another attempt at confusion and delay by someone apparently determined to continue discrimination against families with autistic children.”

Peterson’s latest release comes as more criticism is heaped on the House for denying a vote on “Nick’s Law,” even from conservative quarters. Ron Black is a conservative media personality who, on his blog, lamented the fact that House leaders were unwilling to “cover the least among us.

“This is one case were ‘it’s for the children’ has meaning and my Republican brethren are living up to the stereotype of the GOP being bought and paid for by big business,” Black wrote.

Gumm said it is obvious support for “Nick’s Law” crosses party lines and political philosophies – the only roadblock is an intransigent House leadership.

“Time is of the essence in treating autistic children,” he concluded. “Every day we get closer to the end of this legislative session, and every day we lose more precious Oklahoma children to a disorder that is treatable. ‘Nick’s Law’ would change that, if only we could get a hearing.
“This is an issue about life, and Rep. Peterson wants to squabble over pennies.”

Posted by Senator Jay Paul Gumm at 10:44 PM

Read More, click Here.

Lawmaker blocks insurance mandate bills

Lawmaker blocks insurance mandate bills

May 5, 2008 11:43 PM CDT

Rep. Ron Peterson (R-Broken Arrow) has blocked legislation that would require health insurers to cover a variety of medical procedures.
Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A state lawmaker who has blocked legislation that would require health insurers to cover a variety of medical procedures and conditions has accepted thousands of dollars in donations from individuals or political action committees with ties to the insurance industry, records show.

Rep. Ron Peterson, chairman of the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee, has received a total of $64,600 in election campaign contributions since Jan. 1, 2007, according to records filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. Of the total, $20,075 came from people or PACs with ties to the insurance industry.

Peterson, R-Broken Arrow, is the former owner of a property and casualty insurance agency and his wife is a part-time independent insurance agent. Peterson said the campaign contributions and his close ties to the industry have not influenced his position on insurance mandate legislation.

"They can say I'm the devil and I've been bought off. It's absolutely not true," Peterson said. Peterson said he opposes insurance mandates and believes they drive up the cost of health insurance, making it unaffordable for many Oklahomans.

Please click here to read the rest of the story.