Autism studies bolster argument to act slowly
OUR VIEWS Prevalence rates vary widely
The Oklahoman Editorial
Published: February 7, 2010
AN insurance coverage mandate for autism therapy was a highlight of Gov. Brad Henry’s 2009 State of the State address. The issue didn’t make the highlight reel in Henry’s 2010 speech. It was never mentioned.
Last year Henry joined legislative Democrats in pushing for the mandate, which supporters say would carry a minimal cost and opponents say would be quite expensive.
One mandate bill was killed last year and that bill can’t be considered this session. The mandate has slipped from attention either for practical reasons — Republican resistance is too strong and the GOP has the majority — or for fiscal reasons: This isn’t a good time to place a financial burden on the insured, including state employees.
This is a good time to ask hard questions about the diagnosis for autism. One day after Henry’s speech, The Wall Street Journal compared two recent studies on the prevalence of autism. The studies agree on some points and disagree on others, but the overarching conclusion is that no one really knows why the prevalence rate varies so widely among locales and from one time period to the next.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the national rate for autism spectrum disorder in 2006 at one in 110 American 8-year-olds. That’s up 57 percent from 2002. Why? Is it because more children have autism or because of changing definitions of who has it and who doesn’t?
Columbia University researchers found that the prevalence rate varies greatly within Los Angeles and environs, with higher rates in Beverly Hills than most areas. Why? No one knows.
The theory that early childhood immunizations are responsible for an autism spike is losing credibility. Researchers have struggled in vain to find solid evidence that would prove the theory.
One study says prevalence is greater among the children of highly educated parents. Another study discounts the influence of education. Children born in northwest Los Angeles are four times as likely to be diagnosed with autism as children in any other part of California. Why? No one knows.
Parents of children with an autism diagnosis have made passionate appeals for the coverage mandate. Their emotional arguments are tough to resist, yet the studies cited above offer more reason to urge caution on a mandate that would likely never go away and that would cost the insured ever more money if the diagnosis rate continues to soar.
As awareness builds of autism, more parents are likely to look for signs of trouble and seek a diagnosis. That in turn will likely drive the prevalence rate up. Jon Bai, a federal government epidemiologist, calls the increased rate "a perplexing and urgent concern.”
The pro-mandate side may yet win the argument because the number of autism-diagnosed children is growing so quickly — and so inexplicably.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/autism-studies-bolster-argument-to-act-slowly/article/3437471?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0etMj1SCJ
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Legislation would help the 14,000 children with autism in Virginia
February 7, 2010
Once again, the General Assembly is convening in Richmond, and the tasks and challenges they face are not getting any easier.
Our budget has a large shortfall, our economy is in the tank, and let's not talk about Virginia's roads, bridges and tunnels.
Wouldn't it be great if we could fix some of these issues in a cost-effective manner and save the state and taxpayers money? Well, we haven't found a way to fix the roads or the economy, but we have found a way to fix our autism crisis.
Our autism crisis at present affects more than 14,000 children in Virginia.
We continue to work with our legislators to gain assistance for the families and children with autism by asking that insurance companies cover the cost of medically prescribed services for our children.
The House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee last Tuesday reached a 4-to-4 deadlock on HB303, a bill championed By Del. John Obannon.
The Senate Labor and Commerce committee will vote on SB464 this coming Monday. It is a similar bill championed by Sen. Janet Howell.
Both autism bills are modeled after bills that were enacted in Texas and Pennsylvania in the past few years.
These states have found they can provide the medically prescribed services to their children and create savings of between $187,000 and $220,000 per child in special-education costs over a three-year period. In Virginia the savings are estimated at $167,000 per child. With 14,000 children, that equates to $2.3 billion in savings.
How can this happen? Well, first understand that our public schools are tasked with providing a free and appropriate education for all children in Virginia.
It's a federal law that actually sounds better than it is.
Defining appropriate has been and continues to be an issue. What's appropriate for a child with autism is very different than what is appropriate for a child without a neuro-developmental disorder.
It's not that we have poor-quality public schools in Virginia; we have great schools, teachers and administrators.
However, if our U.S. Surgeon General and the American Pediatric Association define Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) as the best-practice therapy for children with autism, and our schools are not trained, certified or staffed to provide this, guess what happens?
The education is free (well, not free — we do pay taxes); however, it may not be appropriate.
Having an insurance company pick up its share of what is prescribed by a medical doctor solves many problems.
First, our kids with autism get the help they need. Second, our schools are better able to teach the kids they are trained to assist. A child with autism needs both medical and educational therapies and services to get better.
We all know there are no free rides (again, think roads, bridges and tunnels,) so here's the catch. In order to have this occur, insurance premiums are forecasted to increase 0.4 tenths of 1 percent.
That calculates to a projected $1.26 per month per policy — or $15.10 per year.
As an additional benefit to our kids, taxpayers and society, 50 percent of the kids who receive ABA services will no longer need state assistance to live productive lives (estimated at $3.2 million per child over the course of their life). Parents and family members can return to the work force and focus on earning a living, saving for the future and providing for their other children.
So where does this leave us?
It leaves us with a bill that our senators and delegates should no longer postpone. The price of inaction is more than Virginia can afford. Please call your representatives and ask them to support this legislation. The families of children with autism in Virginia thank you.
Llobell is a Virginia Beach resident and the proud grandparent of a 5-year-old child with autism.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-op_autism_0207feb07,0,5997236.story
Once again, the General Assembly is convening in Richmond, and the tasks and challenges they face are not getting any easier.
Our budget has a large shortfall, our economy is in the tank, and let's not talk about Virginia's roads, bridges and tunnels.
Wouldn't it be great if we could fix some of these issues in a cost-effective manner and save the state and taxpayers money? Well, we haven't found a way to fix the roads or the economy, but we have found a way to fix our autism crisis.
Our autism crisis at present affects more than 14,000 children in Virginia.
We continue to work with our legislators to gain assistance for the families and children with autism by asking that insurance companies cover the cost of medically prescribed services for our children.
The House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee last Tuesday reached a 4-to-4 deadlock on HB303, a bill championed By Del. John Obannon.
The Senate Labor and Commerce committee will vote on SB464 this coming Monday. It is a similar bill championed by Sen. Janet Howell.
Both autism bills are modeled after bills that were enacted in Texas and Pennsylvania in the past few years.
These states have found they can provide the medically prescribed services to their children and create savings of between $187,000 and $220,000 per child in special-education costs over a three-year period. In Virginia the savings are estimated at $167,000 per child. With 14,000 children, that equates to $2.3 billion in savings.
How can this happen? Well, first understand that our public schools are tasked with providing a free and appropriate education for all children in Virginia.
It's a federal law that actually sounds better than it is.
Defining appropriate has been and continues to be an issue. What's appropriate for a child with autism is very different than what is appropriate for a child without a neuro-developmental disorder.
It's not that we have poor-quality public schools in Virginia; we have great schools, teachers and administrators.
However, if our U.S. Surgeon General and the American Pediatric Association define Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) as the best-practice therapy for children with autism, and our schools are not trained, certified or staffed to provide this, guess what happens?
The education is free (well, not free — we do pay taxes); however, it may not be appropriate.
Having an insurance company pick up its share of what is prescribed by a medical doctor solves many problems.
First, our kids with autism get the help they need. Second, our schools are better able to teach the kids they are trained to assist. A child with autism needs both medical and educational therapies and services to get better.
We all know there are no free rides (again, think roads, bridges and tunnels,) so here's the catch. In order to have this occur, insurance premiums are forecasted to increase 0.4 tenths of 1 percent.
That calculates to a projected $1.26 per month per policy — or $15.10 per year.
As an additional benefit to our kids, taxpayers and society, 50 percent of the kids who receive ABA services will no longer need state assistance to live productive lives (estimated at $3.2 million per child over the course of their life). Parents and family members can return to the work force and focus on earning a living, saving for the future and providing for their other children.
So where does this leave us?
It leaves us with a bill that our senators and delegates should no longer postpone. The price of inaction is more than Virginia can afford. Please call your representatives and ask them to support this legislation. The families of children with autism in Virginia thank you.
Llobell is a Virginia Beach resident and the proud grandparent of a 5-year-old child with autism.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-op_autism_0207feb07,0,5997236.story
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Leap Tall Buildings?
Printed from the Urban Tulsa Weekly website: http://www.urbantulsa.com
POSTED ON JANUARY 27, 2010:
Look, up at the capitol--is it Superman or Clark Kent?
By Arnold Hamilton
If House Speaker-designate Kris Steele isn't the most anxious guy at the state Capitol these days, he should be.
The Shawnee Republican is the GOP majority's choice to grab hold of the gavel for the 2011 session, succeeding current Speaker Chris Benge, who is being forced from office by term limits.
The problem is, Steele's yearlong ascension to power unfolds just as the House Republican caucus is showing signs of morphing into the political equivalent of a hornet's nest.
The very public dispute between Benge and Rep. David Dank of Oklahoma City over Dank's proposed property tax cap began escalating less than a fortnight before the session opens Feb. 1, threatening to fracture the GOP coalition.
In fact, Dank demanded that Benge "step up" and support the tax plan or "step down and let someone else lead the House." Benge quickly fired back, accusing Dank of "political grandstanding at its worst."
In the middle sits Steele, a genial, bespectacled 36-year-old Methodist minister whose ascension to power could be short-circuited if he is unable to help preserve caucus harmony and if notions of a palace coup take root.
Steele's position is especially tricky because he currently serves as speaker pro tempore--the House's No. 2 position. This isn't a mostly ceremonial job like lieutenant governor or vice president. The pro tem actually sits in the speaker's chair every day, wielding power over who speaks and who doesn't--and for how long. He also is routinely called upon to interpret murky, arcane House rules, a power all but certain to produce bruised egos and short tempers.
Not surprisingly, the speaker pro tem is rarely the most popular guy in the House Chamber--and on occasion might well be the most despised.
Steele glided fairly through his four terms as a state representative, winning praise from both his GOP colleagues and from Democrats as a workhorse, not a show horse. His efforts on behalf of children, low-income Oklahomans and seniors won him numerous awards and accolades.
As he rose into leadership, however, Steele made compromises that turned off staunch allies and created more than a few enemies.
One of his biggest mistakes, in my view, was throwing families with autistic children under the bus this past session. Steele had been working closely with those families for several years to require insurance companies in Oklahoma to cover autism--a proposal known as Nick's Law.
As Steele well knows, autism is a ticking time bomb for state taxpayers--early, sustained treatment is less costly and can help sufferers lead more normal, more productive lives; those who go without help often need expensive, lifelong care, typically in institutional settings.
Unfortunately, big insurance is a powerful force these days at the Capitol, perhaps even the most influential. With designs on the speakership, Steele jettisoned the common-sense proposal--which was killed in committee--and instead pursued legislation designed to increase the number of doctors trained to diagnose and treat autism.
Question: What good does it do if rank-and-file Oklahomans can't afford to be diagnosed or treated?
What's worse, Steele argued it was the best lawmakers could do. Baloney. It was the Insurance Industry Profits Protection Act of 2009, pure and simple. It's a shell game, shifting costs from insurance companies (which would cover treatment for children) to taxpayers (who would pay for much costlier adult care).
Credible studies show mandating autism coverage has no appreciable affect on premiums. In other words, it doesn't hurt insurance company profits. But big insurance doesn't want the Legislature to start approving any more mandates--none have been required since Republicans gained a House majority in 2004. The last mandate? Mammograms. Can you imagine where we'd be if women weren't encouraged--and insurance didn't cover--the annual exams?
Similarly, the dust-up over property taxes is the result of another case of legislative cost-shifting.
Dank, an affable 71-year-old grandfather and former newspaper publisher, wants to cap annual property tax increases at three percent and freeze property tax rates for seniors over 65, many of whom are on fixed incomes. Seems reasonable.
The problem is, public schools and other essential government services rely heavily on property taxes. Dank's proposal would put a serious financial crimp in those long-term services, unless lawmakers pony up additional dollars.
That, however, would require legislators to either make significant cuts in other government services or raise taxes to offset the loss, neither of which is palatable politically. They would prefer to keep the status quo--meaning that property taxes double every 13 years in Oklahoma--than be put in the position of having to answer to the voters about spending priorities or raising taxes.
It's an issue that's not going away. Dank has made that clear. And he has more than a few allies in the Legislature.
Many of the newer House members have more in common with the Tea Party activists than with the corporatists who run the House as a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Chamber of Commerce.
They might be registered Republicans, and they may share much of what has become the GOP worldview--especially when it comes to religion and knocking down the wall separating church and state--but the reality is that they identify less with their party and more with ideology.
They don't play by the old rules of party discipline that allow disagreements behind closed doors but demand lock-step unity in public.
This brings us back to Steele's tricky position. House Republicans may have decided by acclamation last fall that he would be speaker-in-waiting, but there's nothing to prevent unhappy--or ambitious--members from staging a coup before he can grab hold of the gavel.
After all, he must first survive what could well be a raucous, even angry session for lawmakers dealing with a revenue crisis that will slash state spending from $7.1 billion as recently as 2008 to only $5.3 billion available next year. Further, the makeup of the House will change in the November elections--some current members who supported Steele for speaker won't be around any longer, for example, because of term limits. The newcomers might prefer a different candidate.
If Steele, Benge and other House Republican leaders can't figure out a way to manage the personalities and issues, and if the House ends up in open revolt this session, it could end up costing Steele dearly.
-- Arnold Hamilton is editor of The Oklahoma Observer; www.okobserver.net
URL for this story: http://www.urbantulsa.comhttp://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A29121
POSTED ON JANUARY 27, 2010:
Look, up at the capitol--is it Superman or Clark Kent?
By Arnold Hamilton
If House Speaker-designate Kris Steele isn't the most anxious guy at the state Capitol these days, he should be.
The Shawnee Republican is the GOP majority's choice to grab hold of the gavel for the 2011 session, succeeding current Speaker Chris Benge, who is being forced from office by term limits.
The problem is, Steele's yearlong ascension to power unfolds just as the House Republican caucus is showing signs of morphing into the political equivalent of a hornet's nest.
The very public dispute between Benge and Rep. David Dank of Oklahoma City over Dank's proposed property tax cap began escalating less than a fortnight before the session opens Feb. 1, threatening to fracture the GOP coalition.
In fact, Dank demanded that Benge "step up" and support the tax plan or "step down and let someone else lead the House." Benge quickly fired back, accusing Dank of "political grandstanding at its worst."
In the middle sits Steele, a genial, bespectacled 36-year-old Methodist minister whose ascension to power could be short-circuited if he is unable to help preserve caucus harmony and if notions of a palace coup take root.
Steele's position is especially tricky because he currently serves as speaker pro tempore--the House's No. 2 position. This isn't a mostly ceremonial job like lieutenant governor or vice president. The pro tem actually sits in the speaker's chair every day, wielding power over who speaks and who doesn't--and for how long. He also is routinely called upon to interpret murky, arcane House rules, a power all but certain to produce bruised egos and short tempers.
Not surprisingly, the speaker pro tem is rarely the most popular guy in the House Chamber--and on occasion might well be the most despised.
Steele glided fairly through his four terms as a state representative, winning praise from both his GOP colleagues and from Democrats as a workhorse, not a show horse. His efforts on behalf of children, low-income Oklahomans and seniors won him numerous awards and accolades.
As he rose into leadership, however, Steele made compromises that turned off staunch allies and created more than a few enemies.
One of his biggest mistakes, in my view, was throwing families with autistic children under the bus this past session. Steele had been working closely with those families for several years to require insurance companies in Oklahoma to cover autism--a proposal known as Nick's Law.
As Steele well knows, autism is a ticking time bomb for state taxpayers--early, sustained treatment is less costly and can help sufferers lead more normal, more productive lives; those who go without help often need expensive, lifelong care, typically in institutional settings.
Unfortunately, big insurance is a powerful force these days at the Capitol, perhaps even the most influential. With designs on the speakership, Steele jettisoned the common-sense proposal--which was killed in committee--and instead pursued legislation designed to increase the number of doctors trained to diagnose and treat autism.
Question: What good does it do if rank-and-file Oklahomans can't afford to be diagnosed or treated?
What's worse, Steele argued it was the best lawmakers could do. Baloney. It was the Insurance Industry Profits Protection Act of 2009, pure and simple. It's a shell game, shifting costs from insurance companies (which would cover treatment for children) to taxpayers (who would pay for much costlier adult care).
Credible studies show mandating autism coverage has no appreciable affect on premiums. In other words, it doesn't hurt insurance company profits. But big insurance doesn't want the Legislature to start approving any more mandates--none have been required since Republicans gained a House majority in 2004. The last mandate? Mammograms. Can you imagine where we'd be if women weren't encouraged--and insurance didn't cover--the annual exams?
Similarly, the dust-up over property taxes is the result of another case of legislative cost-shifting.
Dank, an affable 71-year-old grandfather and former newspaper publisher, wants to cap annual property tax increases at three percent and freeze property tax rates for seniors over 65, many of whom are on fixed incomes. Seems reasonable.
The problem is, public schools and other essential government services rely heavily on property taxes. Dank's proposal would put a serious financial crimp in those long-term services, unless lawmakers pony up additional dollars.
That, however, would require legislators to either make significant cuts in other government services or raise taxes to offset the loss, neither of which is palatable politically. They would prefer to keep the status quo--meaning that property taxes double every 13 years in Oklahoma--than be put in the position of having to answer to the voters about spending priorities or raising taxes.
It's an issue that's not going away. Dank has made that clear. And he has more than a few allies in the Legislature.
Many of the newer House members have more in common with the Tea Party activists than with the corporatists who run the House as a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Chamber of Commerce.
They might be registered Republicans, and they may share much of what has become the GOP worldview--especially when it comes to religion and knocking down the wall separating church and state--but the reality is that they identify less with their party and more with ideology.
They don't play by the old rules of party discipline that allow disagreements behind closed doors but demand lock-step unity in public.
This brings us back to Steele's tricky position. House Republicans may have decided by acclamation last fall that he would be speaker-in-waiting, but there's nothing to prevent unhappy--or ambitious--members from staging a coup before he can grab hold of the gavel.
After all, he must first survive what could well be a raucous, even angry session for lawmakers dealing with a revenue crisis that will slash state spending from $7.1 billion as recently as 2008 to only $5.3 billion available next year. Further, the makeup of the House will change in the November elections--some current members who supported Steele for speaker won't be around any longer, for example, because of term limits. The newcomers might prefer a different candidate.
If Steele, Benge and other House Republican leaders can't figure out a way to manage the personalities and issues, and if the House ends up in open revolt this session, it could end up costing Steele dearly.
-- Arnold Hamilton is editor of The Oklahoma Observer; www.okobserver.net
URL for this story: http://www.urbantulsa.comhttp://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A29121
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Autism Insurance Hearing: Families Hoping for Help, Insurers Question Mandate
By KSPR News
Story Created: Jan 19, 2010
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A big monetary difference remains
between insurers and health care advocates over Missouri
legislation addressing treatment for autistic children.
House and Senate committees each heard testimony Tuesday on
bills seeking to make Missouri the 16th state to enact an autism
insurance mandate.
Advocates back a proposal that would require insurers to
annually cover up to $72,000 of a therapy known as "applied
behavioral analysis" for people up to age 21.
But insurance company lobbyists say that is to costly and too
long. An executive for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City
suggested an alternative of providing up to $32,000 of coverage
annually for children through age 7, with lesser coverage for older
children.
A spokeswoman for one of the bill’s sponsors, Senator Scott Rupp, R-Wentzville, says lawmakers will likely vote within the next two weeks. The Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee meets every Tuesday.
Click on our video report to hear from Ozarks families who say ABA is proven to be successful yet too costly without coverage for many parents.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Story Created: Jan 19, 2010
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A big monetary difference remains
between insurers and health care advocates over Missouri
legislation addressing treatment for autistic children.
House and Senate committees each heard testimony Tuesday on
bills seeking to make Missouri the 16th state to enact an autism
insurance mandate.
Advocates back a proposal that would require insurers to
annually cover up to $72,000 of a therapy known as "applied
behavioral analysis" for people up to age 21.
But insurance company lobbyists say that is to costly and too
long. An executive for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City
suggested an alternative of providing up to $32,000 of coverage
annually for children through age 7, with lesser coverage for older
children.
A spokeswoman for one of the bill’s sponsors, Senator Scott Rupp, R-Wentzville, says lawmakers will likely vote within the next two weeks. The Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee meets every Tuesday.
Click on our video report to hear from Ozarks families who say ABA is proven to be successful yet too costly without coverage for many parents.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Autism Coverage Fight Continues
Autism Coverage Fight Continues
Submitted by dochoc on Tue, 2010-01-19 18:30 Legislature
To check out OKIE FUNK blog, click here.
A proposed legislative bill would allow Oklahoma voters to decide if insurance companies should cover treatments for autism.
State Rep. Mike Brown (D-Tahlequah) has filed House Joint Resolution 1068, which if approved, would ask voters to add this amendment to the state constitution: “Any health insurance provider offering comprehensive coverage within the State of Oklahoma shall provide coverage for neurobiological disorders such as autism.”
The issue of providing coverage for autism has been a contentious one. Last year, Republicans killed “Nick’s Law,” a bill named for an Edmond youth with autism. His father, Wayne Rohde, and some legislators, had pushed for the legislation. But the bill was killed in a legislative committee.
Requiring insurance companies to cover autism is the right thing to do and some states already require such coverage.
The state GOP leadership argues this mandate could sharply increase overall insurance costs, but that’s not true. That argument is simply a distorted projection. Those who support coverage for autism argue that the increase costs would be minimal, which has been the case in other states.
Here’s a decent report on the cost issue.
Will the Republican leadership oppose Brown’s resolution? If the resolution passes, will the vested interests—primarily the health insurance industry—throw a lot of money into an election fight in order to deny coverage for those who suffer from autism?
Submitted by dochoc on Tue, 2010-01-19 18:30 Legislature
To check out OKIE FUNK blog, click here.
A proposed legislative bill would allow Oklahoma voters to decide if insurance companies should cover treatments for autism.
State Rep. Mike Brown (D-Tahlequah) has filed House Joint Resolution 1068, which if approved, would ask voters to add this amendment to the state constitution: “Any health insurance provider offering comprehensive coverage within the State of Oklahoma shall provide coverage for neurobiological disorders such as autism.”
The issue of providing coverage for autism has been a contentious one. Last year, Republicans killed “Nick’s Law,” a bill named for an Edmond youth with autism. His father, Wayne Rohde, and some legislators, had pushed for the legislation. But the bill was killed in a legislative committee.
Requiring insurance companies to cover autism is the right thing to do and some states already require such coverage.
The state GOP leadership argues this mandate could sharply increase overall insurance costs, but that’s not true. That argument is simply a distorted projection. Those who support coverage for autism argue that the increase costs would be minimal, which has been the case in other states.
Here’s a decent report on the cost issue.
Will the Republican leadership oppose Brown’s resolution? If the resolution passes, will the vested interests—primarily the health insurance industry—throw a lot of money into an election fight in order to deny coverage for those who suffer from autism?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Oklahoma legislators ready to debate newly filed state measures
BY MICHAEL MCNUTT and JULIE BISBEE The Oklahoman
Published: January 17, 2010
The state’s worst budget crisis in modern history is not getting in the way of legislators filing more than 2,200 bills for the session that begins next month.
Some issues back
→Requiring insurance companies to provide coverage of treatment for children with autism, an issue that Democratic and Republican leaders have butted heads over the past two sessions, is back. A House committee last year on the second day of the session killed a proposal named "Nick’s Law” for an 11-year- old boy from Edmond who suffers from autism. Under legislative rules, the issue isn’t to be brought up again until the legislative session starting in 2011.
However, Democratic floor leader Mike Brown of Tahlequah has filed a resolution that if approved would put the idea to voters.
To read the entire article, click here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Ron Black's Daily Rant
So, will Nick's Law be discussed in the legislature?
After some political wrangling during the last session, a procedural move supposedly made it impossible to hear Nick's Law (mandated insurance coverage for autism) for two years. Talk is that it will be heard again, but perhaps in a different format. I confess that I'm not sure just what happened or how it can happen, but I believe the time has come (again) to at least give it a fair hearing.
Much like the campus concealed carry law.
Herein lies the problem: It is an election year and campaign contributions are the life blood of any campaign and the folks with cash flow aren't really interested in doing the right thing, but rather are proponents of wide open free markets. To some, the government should not only NOT mandate anything relating to business, but pretty much give big business a blank check.
I have been a supporter of Nick's Law myself for a long time but not for the reasons you would think. Sure, my son was diagnosed with a form of autism but today, he is a normal, video-game playing teen. I support it because it is just the right thing to do. Sometimes, conservatism means that we do the right thing and lean into the pitch and take one for the team and for the "least among us."
What is ironic is the opponents of Nick's Law are often the most outspoken advocates of Christian principles and ideologies. They often believe that we are a theocracy, a country that is truly Christian at its core. If that is the case, how can they also NOT support a simple law that requires insurance companies in Oklahoma to provide an option for autism coverage? It just doesn't make sense.
To read the entire blog, please click here.
After some political wrangling during the last session, a procedural move supposedly made it impossible to hear Nick's Law (mandated insurance coverage for autism) for two years. Talk is that it will be heard again, but perhaps in a different format. I confess that I'm not sure just what happened or how it can happen, but I believe the time has come (again) to at least give it a fair hearing.
Much like the campus concealed carry law.
Herein lies the problem: It is an election year and campaign contributions are the life blood of any campaign and the folks with cash flow aren't really interested in doing the right thing, but rather are proponents of wide open free markets. To some, the government should not only NOT mandate anything relating to business, but pretty much give big business a blank check.
I have been a supporter of Nick's Law myself for a long time but not for the reasons you would think. Sure, my son was diagnosed with a form of autism but today, he is a normal, video-game playing teen. I support it because it is just the right thing to do. Sometimes, conservatism means that we do the right thing and lean into the pitch and take one for the team and for the "least among us."
What is ironic is the opponents of Nick's Law are often the most outspoken advocates of Christian principles and ideologies. They often believe that we are a theocracy, a country that is truly Christian at its core. If that is the case, how can they also NOT support a simple law that requires insurance companies in Oklahoma to provide an option for autism coverage? It just doesn't make sense.
To read the entire blog, please click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
