Autism Insurance Reform Bill Passes The House
By Jason Kenney | Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 | PolicyAs seen heavily discussed here at Bearing Drift over the last couple of days (here, here and here), the Autism Insurance Reform Bill (HB2467) passed the House of Delegates today with a 74-24 vote.
YEAS–Abbott, Albo, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Athey, BaCote, Barlow, Brink, Bulova, Carr, Cleaveland, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Filler-Corn, Garrett, Greason, Herring, Hope, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Ingram, James, Janis, Johnson, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Kory, LeMunyon, Lingamfelter, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morgan, Morrissey, O’Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Phillips, Plum, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Rust, Scott, J.M., Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Stolle, Surovell, Tata, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts, Mr. Speaker–74.
NAYS–Abbitt, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Byron, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cox, J.A., Gilbert, Habeeb, Iaquinto, Joannou, Jones, Landes, Lewis, Miller, J.H., Nutter, Peace, Pogge, Putney, Robinson, Scott, E.T., Wilt, Wright–24.
ABSTENTIONS–0.
NOT VOTING–Villanueva–1.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Jason Kenney has blogged at J’s Notes since 2001, is the director of RedStormPAC providing online fundraising for Republican candidates in Virginia, and co-founder of K6 Consulting. He is a graduate from Virginia Commonwealth University and resides in Richmond, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
75 Responses to "Autism Insurance Reform Bill Passes The House"
I’m glad to see the level of bipartisan support the bill had.
What is the difference between abstaining and not voting?
Abstaining is choosing not to vote, Delegate Villanueva was “Not Voting” because he wasn’t physically in the Chamber or in Richmond to vote due to an emergency at home.
ABStaining is often done due to a potential conflict of interest. I.E Delegate ABC owns a car dealership and the bill deals with regulations specifically on car dealers.
Not a fan of this.
The government shouldnt be regulating this.Care is the responsbility of the parent.
How do we feel about the other mandated coverages?
http://scc.virginia.gov/division/boi/webpages/boimandated.htm
Really Tyler? Well aren’t the parents “being responsible” for it when they buy health insurance and their kid is later born with a medical problem(autism in this case)?
What if you buy insurance and later find out the small print excludes a disorder your child has? I mean really, should you have to make sure hemophilia is covered in case your kid is a bleeder?
“Oooooo………we’re sorry. We cover everything except scoliosis. You must not have read our disclaimers and excluded conditions. You didn’t think health insurance would pay health care bills did you?”
Being for small government does not mean allowing deceptively represented products.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, jamie davis. jamie davis said: Autism Insurance Reform Bill Passes The House | Bearing Drift …: As seen heavily discussed here at Bearing Dri… http://bit.ly/ib1eBR [...]
Tyler is absolutely right.
If your kid needs heart surgery, it is clearly the parents job to take care of it. How hard can it be? People do it on TV all the time.
Britt and Brian-
The fact is…it’s your responsibility to see what your plan covers and doesn’t cover. It’s all right there in the papers you sign. It’s not about insurance companies being deceptive…it’s about you being a smart and responsible consumer. Some insurance plans DO cover care for autistic children as it stands now, even before this legislation was passed. Now, if you can’t afford it, that’s another problem.
A few other fun facts…
1) This bill is slated to make premiums rise an estimated 1-3%, but the bill caps the mandated coverage for autism at 1%. So, the only way anybody will see coverage under this bill is if a company, whose premiums are estimated to rise over that 1% cap, opts-in to the coverage…and even then, it’s unclear as to whether insurance companies will have to still offer the coverage since it’s above the state mandated cap. So, essentially this bill does NOTHING, correct So, what was the point in passing it again other than you can say ‘I voted for autism coverage’?? This is a shoot first and ask questions later kind of measure, and it’s bad policy and process.
2) Lacey Putney, the chair of Appropriations, the committee responsible for finding a way to carve out the $1 million to $2.3 million estimated costs of tacking this mandate to state employee insurance plans, VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. Looks like something might not get funded in the final budget…
NWrong, that’s fine and dandy if you’re in a shopping aisle and you can compare labels. It’s not fine when your employer offers you two plans, and neither one covers autism.
Our disagreements over the mandate issue aside, so long as Section L (the one that exempts Obamacare-approved policies) is in this bill, no one should support it. We need to move the insurers *away* from Obamacare, not rush them towards it.
On a side note, it will also make it more likely that any coverage provided by this bill disappears in 2014 when the “exchange” plans wipe out everything else.
NW, maybe this isn’t a good bill. I don’t know. It think all insurance should cover it. It is a medical condition.
So just how many hours did you spend reading your policy? Do you have any idea how many diseases and injuries there are? You don’t have arthitis now and no thyroid condition yet. You’re supposed to be “responsible” and calculate your chances? That and read the fine print written in a form purposely tedious? Are employers supposed to do that too? I guess. At least they can hire professionals to do that. Everyone else is SOL.
You do know one legal “tactic” is to try to bury your opponent in paperwork right? And why is that? Think about it. Why do city managers typically “brief” councilmen with reams of reports? Maybe so they won’t be armed with the truth and act “responsibly?
I don’t object to different levels of coverage for autism. Just like I don’t mind different levels for eye disease. But tell me NW, are you going to tell me a health insurance company can say sorry, we don’t cover glaucoma or macular degeneration at all?
How much guess work do you personally allow until it does become deceptive?
Brian, why should the employer be forced to even supply insurance of any kind? Adding to the cost of insurance will only result in less people being insured. If a employer wanted to supply insurance for only certain medical issues what is the problem? Before I became self-employed my former employer told me he didn’t care what the General Assembly wanted to add to the insurance he supplied to employees. He was simply going to pass cost along in increased employees cost or lower salaries.
If the problem was with customers not understanding what was covered, a bill addressing this problem would have more appropriate.
Lauren, why shouldn’t we all move to Jupiter?
Boy, we’re scraping the barrel on questions now.
I guess AFP will next propose a ban on employers offering health insurance benefits.
NWright –
Really don’t know where you’re getting your facts and figures about how much this is supposedly going to cost. The estimates for how much this will raise premiums are way under 1% or they wouldn’t have put a cap on it. They have all kinds of actuarial studies as well as information from states that have already done this showing that the cost isn’t prohibitive.
Lots of info on the Autism Speaks website: http://www.autismspeaks.org. What’s your source?
Also, if you think that Putney isn’t going to include in the budget something the Speaker has supported, I want some of what you’re on…
My point is. That if you want a plan that covers autism coverage purchase one with all the features
as a college student with limited funds. I should be able to purchase a package without all of the unnecessary stuff that dosnot apply to me
But Tyler, that would violate one of the tenents of Obama’s crown jewel of socialism.. The public option is intended to speed up the process of combining the buying power of individual consumers in the insurance market by dictating limited policy choices through unfair competition with tyranical government agencies. Obamacare supporters, and I will call them Marxist in this case, seek an industry devoid of profit motive as a means to contain costs and achieve theoretically competitive efficiencies.. eliminating profit will merely delay the process of bankrupting insurers and make their products so expensive that few will be able to afford them. Of course in a free market economy this will not work so I guess the Obama adminstration is planning for something that will work after our economy collapses which Obamacare will help bring as well.
Tyler, I would support specialized policies. Catastrophic policies combined with medical savings accounts for example. I can even get behind negotiating out certain coverages should you wish to gamble in exchange for reduced price. If we everf get interstate competition, you might have more choices like that.
What I have a problem with is general policies that are really mystery meat bundles. Paying for a bundle with certain things not being covered should be a positive act and requested by the consumer. Not some mystery bundle that fools Joe construction worker about to become a first time father.
There needs to be a separation of state and Economics. Read the contract for your hmo before you get it if your worried about its coverage. If you dont like what it has go elsewhere
Tyler… You go get’em, you’re making your case quite well. You need no help.
As Britt and Brian provide their approval to healthcare policies, they are practicing Socialism (public ownership) which in its true form is Democracy. The pill that is destroying this country. Well, that and politicians.
With them, the Public, intervening in the commerce between two individuals is Socialism? When the state does it, it’s communism?
Besides, Britt and Brian are courting each other, they and their sticky keyboards are making plans to move in together. So, don’t take some of their baseless arguments too serious. They are showing off their feathers. Aren’t they cute?
@Turbo, why not call them Marxists all the time? Not Britt and Brian, they’re Socialists. We now own Government Electric to go with our car company, Government Motors.
I guess our next company will be General Dollar.
@Britt and Brian (Schoeneman), Hope you guys have a sense of humor. Hopefully, you can take these in good jist.
@Brian Kirwan, your employer is offering healthcare as an incentive or it use to be. But we feel we must tell businesses how they must run. That person can always go to another job that offers that healthcare coverage they want. He can also go to another job that offers more money…if that was a choice. I normally agree with you but not here.
Just wait until you get the bills for their tickering with the internet, that should be good.
“That person can always go to another job that offers that healthcare coverage they want.”
So, that’s your recommendation for the head of a family with an autistic child? Quit your job?
Would that autism coverage was so plentiful that most insurances covered it. So many states wouldn’t have passed requirements if they already had.
In fact, all you and your fellow commenters have assured me that any insurance company that had a choice would ditch it.
So much for choice.
No one plans to have an autistic child. You get a job, you choose insurance, you have a family, SURPRISE! And then double surprise, you find out that not only does your insurance not cover it, but it’s suddenly PRE-EXISTING!!!! so even if you do follow all your sage advice and find some lonely, little insurance company somewhere that covers it, it’s too late to cover your child.
If y’all are defending this system, you’re insane.
“Besides, Britt and Brian are courting each other, they and their sticky keyboards are making plans to move in together. ”
Sounds like you’re a man of experience, John.
John jackson, I am more interested in argument than name calling.
Why not actually read my posts before asserting am gay and a socialist? Nothing wrong with being gay, though.
You make the statement that there should be a separation between economics and the state. I agree. I even made stipulations for specialized plans. I do cherish economic freedom.
Naturally at this point, you’re asking how I can want economic freedom, and want something socialistic and apparently to you, gay.
YOU CAN’T HAVE ECONOMIC FREEDOM WITH UNCHECKED FRAUD!!!
Bundles can be deceptive as well as cost saving for both parties. If there was fair warning up front of the hazard of not being covered, you would have more of an argument. Tyler seems to think that everyone is capable of deciphering legalese fine print. In a specialized society that won’t be the case. Those arguing policy here, probably are. Some may feel everyone might be as capable and just lazy.
As a Libertarian, I agree with you quite often. I was against the smoking ban, but would have been ok with mandating a sign be posted at the door alerting patrons of a smoke filled area. A hazard warning that enables the consumer to make INFORMED DECISIONS. There is no freedom without informed decision making. That is how governnment and corporate pirates control the masses. They remove access to the truth.
See John, Libertarians believe in small government, but believe in the purpose of government. That purpose being to protect the individual from force & FRAUD. That and provide perhaps a basic infrastructure for commerce, courts etc.
I’m talking about Brian Schoeneman but if you wish to make a threesome than so be it, that’s you prerogative, or is that regulated too.
All I’m saying is…who the HELL are you (or any other party) to decide what negotiations happen between two other parties?
If everyone would concentrate on bringing down healthcare cost rather than putting more requirements on the Insurance Companies, then we wouldn’t be trying even harder to hold those costs down. Meanwhile putting more stress on the whole system.
A health insurance policy excluding many health conditions that is sold as, portrayed as a general health care policy is necessarily deceptive. It hinders informed judgement. Consumers – individual and employers should be told up front that the policy they are considering is not a general policy and detail everything excluded up front.
In the case of catastrophic care, general explanations would be sufficient to notify the consumer that large amounts of coverage would obviously not be covered. A medical savings account would be a good companion to catastrophic care.
Britt…OK, my gay comment was symbolic of how you two (Brian S.) were teaming up on Tyler. My apology, I take it you do not take it in jist. I will leave you out of the name calling.
As for the fraud, how is it fraud if a company does not coverage for autism? They don’t cover it. If you wish to get the catillac plan to cover all these other illnesses, then purchase some type of cadillac plan, the Unions get it.
To mandate that every package must carry coverage for autism seems to be another way of mandating this coverage.
Note…if your more interested in arguing than name calling then quit calling it “Fraud”.
Does a “catillac” plan cover spelling?
John, it isn’t name calling; it is factual calling it fraud.
Misrepresenting a policy as a “general health plan” but excluding autism(a health condition) and other conditions is fraudulent. Why are you against informed decisions?
You want specialized plans, fine. Just be up front and allow for honest commerce.
If the two Brians and I made an informed choice to engage in a gay threesome, that is fine. I am a Libertarian that believes in freedom. However, if our wives went into a marriage contract with us unaware of the hazard of us having that sexuality, they could claim a misrepresentation. They could exit the marital contract and possibly extract penalties.
It’s nice to know John is going to refuse Medicare and Social Security.
John, I have a good sense of humor, and it won’t be the first time (nor the last) that I’m called a socialist. The funny thing is that you seem to think that the entire system of insurance isn’t inherently socialist to begin with – it’s all based on “spreading the wealth” where people pay in, but only those who ‘need’ it get money out. How is that not socialist? Are you really defending that kind of a system?
Tyler, I don’t know if you’ve ever had a job that offers you health insurance as a benefit. If so, you recognize that you choose from what the employer offers you. If they don’t offer a plan that includes autism coverage, do you reject their plans and go elsewhere? Most people don’t – because doing so means you lose the benefit of having your employer pick up some of the cost of your health care.
People, for the most part, do not go out and purchase insurance on their own. And the vast majority of plans, if not all in Virginia, do not cover autism. If they did, and those plans were affordable, we wouldn’t be having this argument.
What I find completely unfathomable is how anyone in this thread is acting like purchasing insurance is like going to Best Buy and picking out a TV. It’s not.
Options are limited. For most people, purchasing a health insurance plan is impossible – even with COBRA, the costs when not subsidized by an employer are just too high. Even with employer subsidies, my wife was paying $800 a month for health insurance for our family (sorry, John, not gay either).
So you pick what you can from what your employer offers. For some those are great. For others, not so much. And the vast majority of plans don’t cover autism so most parents of autistic children never had the chance to purchase a plan that covered it. That’s why this legislation was necessary.
Hey…I have a sniper. Good one Brian. Yes, spelling is covered by my catillac plan. That’s the one above the cadillac plan. You need to check your options better.
You’re talking about entitlement programs introduced long ago. During the great society, depression and the war on poverty. Boy, have the Progressives won those battles.
To have programs that take care of people who are not able to do it themselves. I think you would have a concensus.
My problem is taking care of the able…or the irresponsible/unwiling. If they were held accountable to their decisions. They may make better ones.
As for autism, there needs to be an emphasis on the front end instead of regulating how insurance companies are handled.
1- We know that this bill will raise health insurance cost.
2- We know it could result in reduced coverage due to families being unable to pay for insurance.
3- The bill doesn’t address the real problem of people not understanding what coverage they are buying.
4- If we follow this model can we expect every year to be adding some new disorder to mandatory coverage? Wouldn’t it be much easier to mandate some kind of openness on the part of the insurer so people know what they are buying?
Yea, well he claims I am a big government socialist because I want an honest playing field where informed decisions, the basis of freedom can be made. One of the few functions of government is to prevent fraud and enforce contracts.
He claims we care nothing about reducing costs. Me, because I insist that a general plan sold as such, especially to a general population of a larger employer actually cover general health issues. At least alert people that it won’t cover many conditions.
Nevermind local Libertarians have supported cost saving alternatives like catastrophic plans combined with enhanced medical savings accounts. We also push interstate competition. I want some sort of tort reform. To say I am a socialist or don’t spend any time trying to find ways to contain costs is absurd. To hear it from a good fellow small government guy like John, is irritating.
“General” – not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc. the general public; general science.
It doesn’t mean everything.
fraud – deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
By calling something General and not disclosing everything is covered does not equate to fraud.
As for the contracts between you and Brian squared wife’s, I give them permission to break the marriage contracts with you and engage in a contract with each other.
There I like that… So, screw your wives’ contract with you because I deem mine better. I bet I could get some support that you entered into your marriage with fraudulent intentions with your wives.for that also. Who’s in?
Hopefully you get my point. Nothing meant disrespectful to your wives…just pointing out how diving into other people’s contracts hurts.
Don’t worry, Britt. John still wants his big government, socialist Medicare and Social Security.
His “conservatism” stops when he needs the benefits.
Lauren,
1 – This is true. The increased cost will be minimal. The best guess is it may at 40 cents to a policy.
2 – That is simply not true. There is no evidence that this change will cause anyone to be unable to afford insurance.
3 – This isn’t the problem this bill is designed to alleviate. If you want to advocate for a bill that requires health insurance coverage to be explained in plain English, that’s fine, but the issue this bill addresses has nothing to do with people not knowing what they’re buying. It is to make it possible for people get what they want to buy but can’t.
4 – This is not the first nor the last thing mandated in Virginia law. 57 other things are mandated. This isn’t some kind of slippery slope. That ship sailed years ago.
Again, this isn’t about people thinking they’re buying one thing and getting something different. It’s about people not being able to buy what they want because it’s simply not offered.
To B.S. I have to figure out what the heck your saying. Insurance is Socialistic system. It sounds twisted. Let me ponder your theory becaue I have to figure out how your getting a socialistic system out of that.
To Britt. Sorry Dude, but if your irritated with that. I’m pretty irritated about people advocating government involvement. Now, that’s irritating. They manage to screw up everything they do and it ends up costing more.
I’m ok with disclosures. Kind of like those disclosures with medications. They spout off about 90 side effects…usually the last one being death. That usually gets my attention but normally just waters down all the other ones.
To Speical K. Just wanted to say hi, didn’t want to leave you out.
Hey guys…gotta go do some work so I can pay for Mike Barrett’s crony capitalism.
Speical?
To bad that you have to leave John. I’m for small government, you sound like you want no government.
Would love to hear if you think government is necessary for anything. Then I can see what you do think government can get involved with.
As for your definition of general and fraud, you are just being purposely dense and difficult. You know what I am saying. Fine, the analogy could be for any other condition one would assume would be covered under a general plan. Your child’s broken leg falling out of a tree? Epilepsy? Food poisoning? At what point would you consider a general policy not so general.
It will be hard to get anything done reducing the size of government. Small government people often make the perfect the enemy of the good and can’t stand cooperating with someone they see as “less pure” to get real things done. They descend to name calling as quickly as the other groups we often criticize for the same thing. I’m becoming a little pessimmistic on Radtke’s chances now. At least the Allen camp will stick together.
On disclosures, not the same thing as those disclosures that may not even be true for medications but are insisted on by the legal team because of coincidence during studies.
“We don’t offer services for autism, breast cancer, or prostate exams” is pretty clear cut. An individual or corporation can decide to walk away due to a lack of value or as a moral decision to not reward a company for such a bundle.
Autism groups as well as others probably need some kind of media campaign and ask the general public if they really want to support companies that offer these self-serving and deceptive bundles.
Brian S,
To be honest I don’t know a lot about the way health care group plans work. I was under the impression that is several in the group were costing a lot of money the whole group rate would rise. Is this not the way it works?
With regard to the comment about helping folks understand what they are buying. I’m not saying that this is what the bill was intended to protect against, I was simply responding to one of the reasons listed earlier for needing this bill.
Brian S
Ive noticed on a regular basis that your not a fan of the free market. You do realize progressives switched parties during the FDR days right?
Tyler wins a cigar! How bout that ‘Like’ button JR!
Brian S., I know and agree that the reason the bill was offered was to get what is wanted (autism coverage). In addressing Lauren response to my posts, I will just say I am putting up an additional arguement about knowing what you are buying.
Why? I find it really hard to believe that most families ntend for their child to be autistic or even entertain it as a likelyhood. Unless it ran in your family, autism would probably be one of the last concerns you have. Once a woman with general coverage does have a child with autism, I would bet a good deal of them initially think it will be covered under their general health plan. Only to later be crushed when the family learns they face yet another obstacle. Am I wrong on that?
If I am not wrong, then my point on awareness of how “general” the plan is valid. Would a plain English disclaimer law be a good idea, yes. Even though this law does not directly solve the clarity issue, by mandating coverage under a General Health plan, that lack of understanding is indeed solved. Right?
There is no reason we can’t have honestly real general plans and cost efficient alternatives at the same time serving the different needs of different people.
If there was no regulation of insurance or any industry the market would naturally create geenral plans.
This Socialist medeling of private industry only raises cost.
I guess Tyler wants to eliminate the Standards of Learning.
That’s the thing, Tyler. General Plans are being sold that are not very “general”. It can be misleading.
I believe that one of the legitimate jobs of government is to protect commerce by stopping fraud and general misrepresentation.
I so get the idea that regulating least is best. However, when you are talking about large corporations having a near monopoly and bundling pacakages to their advantage, you have a captured audience forced with little real competition for product.
One area I am sure we agree on is that there should be interstate competition. If that ever happens, maybe you’re right. Maybe this conversation would not have been necessary.
Currently interstate competition is a bad idea.as by healthcare crossing state lines the feds will try to regulate it. In a true free market it would be ideal
Tyler, lol. Thanks for proving me wrong. We do disagree on interstate competition.
The government will try to regulate it? They already are! Obamacare. Despite the fact that there is NO INTERSTATE COMPETITION, they use the Commerce Clause as an idiotic and completely wrong justification. Competition across state lines would be damaging to what some Dems want to do, so they don’t want it. But you are right, interstate competition would open the door legitimately. Not that they worry with the Constitution or anything.
None the less, you make a very valid point and I need to reconsider some of my positions. I just wish we could count on government to only regulate against fraud and force in regards to health insurance. We have the courts for a reason. We have government for a reason. Unfortunately, the government too often over reaches it’s authority.
Tyler, I’m a big fan of the free market. One of the reasons I am is the fact that I understand how “free markets” work in the real world, and that no market has ever been truly free. There have always been government interventions and protections – if it wasn’t for things like property rights and contract law, all things protected by the government, an economic market place couldn’t exist at all.
It’s ridiculous to argue that if there was no regulation of insurance or industry the market would create all these plans – they don’t exist now, and even in a free market, they wouldn’t exist because the potential profit margins don’t exist. Don’t you think the market – even in its regulated form – would have created these products if the companies felt they could make money off them? Of course they would.
But they can’t. Which is why the mandates are necessary.
I believe in rational government regulation, and government regulation that regulates the least necessary to ensure the market functions properly and people are protected. That’s the best we can do in the real world.
There is no such thing as rational government regulation. Government regulations pick winner and losers and help everyone.
Hurt everyone
Trying to understand where you’re coming from Tyler.
Does the government have a place in contract law? Fraud? Making those that hurt or damage other individuals compensate them. Putting people in jail?
@Britt, As for the definition of general being deceiving and leading to fraud, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, generalizing (or general) does not mean all encompassing. So there is no fraud committed. To you, it’s different and we disagree.
Let me start by saying there’s a difference between the judicial system and legislation. The government should be trying to solve disputes between parties with legislation. They are trying to curve behaviors with legislation. Trying to fix problems before they exist or attempting to make you do certain actions with it, I do not know whether it is stupidity or evil. The more I watch how things happen the more I veer toward the latter.
Where is this health care crisis compared to the financial crisis? Remember, we were in the second Great Depression and yet they spent the first month in office spending $1T in a stimulus package and a whole year pushing healthcare reform. They would not take phone calls or do town halls. They finally passed financial reform and five jobs bills and they didn’t even address the problem—Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Actually, they have exacerbated by giving Fannie Mae a blank check.
Over the two years, Doctors are evil because they wish to cut off limbs for a profit while teachers are saints even though they wish Chris Cristie dead. When they do attempt to fix something like Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare reform, Dems, liberals or progressives scream that you trying to kill grandma. And yet, they’ve instituted death panels. So, there is no area where government is solving problems. Once they are in…it continues…like a cancer.
And now they attempt to dictate what is the minimum required healthcare coverage by telling insurance companies what they should cover.
It is funny that the government attempts to regulate commerce in healthcare but not the internet. The FCC is on the case. When your free internet will no longer be free and harder to navigate because the government is involved. A couple days ago, I was listening to a San Francisco Progressive radio station, they are already throwing the red flags that there aren’t enough IP Addresses. I have an idea…add another digit.
They also advocated cleaning up our space junk (old sateliites) was vital also but that’s for another discussion.
So, everyone says there are victims within the internet…you have credit card fraud and kids watching stuff they shouldn’t. But the free market develops solutions to allow the parents and credit card companies to protect themselves. Now that we have the government intervening to protect us…I’m sure it will become so much better.
If the government was so concerned about the Commerce clause, why haven’t they used it for internet transactions? Well, they slowly are because they see a cash cow. Meanwhile, one of the most efficient systems we have for communicating is available. But there will be a crisis to fix soon. When will it come and what will it be?
John, let me just say that there are a whole lot of ways to address the problems in the world that you are tilting against without drawing the line around Autistic children who are trapped by insurance companies who refuse to cover them.
You choose a mighty interesting hill to die on.
Yes…If I didn’t know better, I would think that your post was coming from a Democrat. Or is it? Hiding behind autistic children to develop another mandate does not solve the problem. I would imagine that the other 56 mandates (Brian S. mentioned) have some type of disease behind them also. At what point do we say enough is enough, at the common day cold?
Instead of trying to approach the research and development aspect of the disease, or drug inducing ailment whichever one it is. The governemnt attempts to regulate it. Doesn’t work–Autism didn’t get the memo.
Just saying, the time where every solution is trying to kill grandma is over. We are at a point to where we need to solve problems…and hiding behind grandma and autistic children does not work.
Should I make the argument for government intervention under some other post and claim its advocating free speech or Second Amendment rights. Still does not negate the essence of the argument of limited government is better.
John, I’ve been questioning this entire debate if you knew better.
Knowing better isn’t something I’d expect of you.
You compare Autism to the common cold!
You’re an IDIOT!
@Brian S. –
How did ole Ben put it, “Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY”
It does nothing for a debate when every time a valid point is made, the exception to the rule is brought up rather than the norm. We are not saying “no regulations” but limited government. Nice catch phrase, maybe some rag tag organization should use it.
The more regulations, the less free the market is. There is no free market amongst a 2,000 page bill. The government does not regulate to ensure markets function properly, markets do better without governments. They have a tendency to screw things up. People are more protected when government gets out of the way and the free market takes over.
Internet is an example. Don’t know many who are victims of internet issues…what has come along has been quickly resolved by the free market. But our faithful government is going to come to protect us soon from some manufactured crisis as they have with these others.
If there are fraud issues, you have LifeLock at a very affordable rate. If there are monitoring your kids, there are parental controls you may purcahse. Both at a very affordable rates.
“markets do better without governments”
Want to get rid of government, John?
Planning a coup?
@Brian K – No, I didn’t compare autism to the common cold. I compared the progression of the debate ending at the common cold.
If you read past posts, Brian S. mentioned that the government has 56 other mandates so the slippery slope started long ago. I would imagine that these mandates are a progression from #1 eminate death to the #101 the common cold. We’re at stage #57. Where does the mandates stop #101 “the common cold”?
I didn’t think I would have to explain that.
Wow…the sniper is back. I’m an advocate for limited government.
If you read the example with the internet, it’s a pretty good example of the free market taking care of itself.
Government is intended to take care of the unable. I’m sure you understand that because they probably take good care of you.
John, as I have noted elsewhere here to Tyler, there is no such thing as a free market. There never has been. Even Adam Smith would acknowledge as much. As long as government is in existence ,it is going to regulate markets, even if it’s just doing things no one has a problem with, like setting standards for weights and measures.
Not all government regulation is bad. I’m pretty sure no one is going to argue that agencies like the FDA should go away, because it’s wrong to force the market to provide us with pure drugs and clean food. And if you actually think that’s right, go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
Not all regulation is bad. Regulation that is overly burdensome is bad. This regulation addresses a legitimate problem – parents of kids with autism cannot purchase insurance to help them cover the costs. Insurance companies don’t want to offer those policies because they don’t believe they can make a profit from them. This is exactly the kind of situation where government needs to step in.
Where do we draw the line? That’s a question that needs to be answered on a case by case basis. I can’t say for sure where that line should be, but I do know that it shouldn’t be drawn with autism on the other side of it. Autistic kids deserve to be treated like any other kid with a chronic illness, not treated like they just learn slow. It’s ridiculous, it’s offensive, and it’s not even close to being scientifically accurate.
Folks who want to argue that all government regulation is bad are no better and just as much a part of the problem as folks who want to argue that the government needs to regulate everything. Both extremes are wrong. There’s a time and a place for regulation that makes sense and does what needs to be done in the least damaging way possible. This is one of those times.
John, it’s nice to see you type things, and then say you didn’t.
You didn’t say “with limited government” – you said “without government”
And this post is about Autism. You brought up the common cold. Why?
@Brian S. Again, I am a LIMITED GOVERNMENT, not NO GOVERNMENT. How do I get this point across?
As bad as it may sound, there is not a market for autism. So, this may be an aspect to where the government develops a program for the UNABLE. This would separate the disease so that the free market would eventually develop a solution to the problem. It would have to be separated or you would have misdiagnoses such as ADD, autism, mentally ill and others.
Then the disease is attacked and not the healthcare coverage.
This puts the whole debate on how to cope with the disease rather than how it is paid for. Putting the burden on the insurance company who can’t solve the problem doesn’t fix the issue of autism. It just pays Doctors and others not to find solutions to the status quo.
You wanna talk about insensitive. When a politician or their pundits comes in, calls a few experts (normally professors or people that agree with their agenda) and then dictates a solution. Then the families, the companies and individuals are left to deal with the details with restrictions on their solutions. While the politician claims victory. Now, that’s insensitive.
How do you make a point?
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
When are you planning to?
You’re sooooooo in favor of limited government that you’d rather start a brand, new federal program than pass a simple regulation.
Well, since you and Brian S. feel that people are dying in the streets and our government must resolve this crisis, there is something other than our government putting up more obstacles and enabling more of the same behavior.
But to hear politicians, pundits, bloggers and Speical K dictate that their way is the only way…and the best way. Then claim that all other ideas “are just wrong” is just. Well, wrong.
Speical K. As I know your not interested in a solution, just sniping. Besides…I thought this was state legislation? My points are made, they’re not the ones your looking for. Those are the only points you hear. It’s a shame because you have such a loud bullhorn.
John, as I have said multiple times, somebody has a better idea that gets the job done here without a mandate, I’m all ears.
I haven’t heard anything from opponents other than “mandates are bad!” “Obamacare!” “socialism!”
If those solutions are out there, I think Brian, I and all the advocates on our side of the issue are all ears.
Yes, John. Autism is just like the common cold. Insurance companies would give all their money away if we’d only ask them to. We should abolish government so we can have a free market.
Go back to sleep.
@John Jackson I understand what you are saying and even agree with you. Normally I agree with the people who have been attacking you, so needed some time to reconsider things.
Have an idea for the next mandate. Free health care for all two-headed snakes in the world. Imagine how hard it is for a two-headed snake to obtain a job much less health insurance. Only eight of them so would cost next to nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/8303800/Animal-pictures-of-the-week-4-February-2011.html?image=1
Great!!! This is a great thing and hopefully it will pass the Senate as well!
Leave your response