Autism coverage will become law; AFP loses
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, April 7th, 2011 | PolicyWINNING!
Coverage for children with Autism won a stirring victory as the House, Senate and Governor worked together to mandate medical coverage for children with Autism.
We now get to sit back and laugh as the hysterics of Americans for Prosperity about how covering Autistic children would make Virginia’s economy crash.
I didn’t believe the hysterics from the fringe right any more than I believed the hysterics of the fringe left who told us how the courts would be FLOODED from passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Pick a better hill next time.
Kudos to the Governor and the majority of legislators who decided by reason, fairness and facts and not from special interest robocalls and hype.
You’re all total bitchin’ rock stars from Mars!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
27 Responses to "Autism coverage will become law; AFP loses"
I am not sure I am thrilled about this. State mandated coverages for services I don’t need drive up my costs. If the gov wants to mandate that coverage be provided as an option for those who want it, ok, I can live with that. But why should I (single with no kids) have to pay for coverage I do not need.
As Delegate O’Bannon said… “South Carolina passed a bill to cover this and the sun still comes up in South Carolina.”
So all the trolls can go…
Let me see if I’ve got this straight, Brian. You want government-funded treatment of autism (which I happen to agree with), but a medically ethical procedure like abortion, even when it is deemed necessary for the health of the expectant mother, should not only be not government-funded but should also be illegal?
HisRoc, I’ve frequently seen you struggle to get straight.
Brian,
Cute. How about this: let’s outlaw abortion of healthy fetuses and restrict its use to fetuses with significant birth defects. Once we develop a prenatal test for autism, we abort those fetuses. Good compromise?
You should be grateful that rule wasn’t in practice before you were born.
Brian,
I thought that you were supposed to be the funny guy–the wit of Bearing Drift. You are coming across as a mean and petty person, more of a hypocrite than a political commentator. You refuse to address what I see as a significant inconsistency in your positions and instead resort to juvenile insults.
I am being to think that it must really suck to be you.
beginning
Perhaps you’d spell better if you used both hands at the computer.
Brian stop picking on the small minded people.
HisRoc, I can see your a Bob Marshall supporter you know the one who said God visits Autism on the parents who have had an abortion!!
HisRoc,
This isn’t government funded. So please get your facts straight.
HisRoc, you’re being an ass.
Normally, I don’t find watching these barb thowing contests offensive, but when you speak of aborting handicapped or autistic children at/in front of parents with autism, that is just beyond the pale. You do realize they love their children and you went where you should never go, right? It doesn’t matter how deserving somebody is to be ridiculed, you just shouldn’t do that.
Just think you went too far and crossed the decency line on that one point.
Whoa. You folks are really misinformed. First, I have been a severe critic of Bob Marshall on this blog and others. Second, my suggestion that birth defective children be aborted was a twist of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Anyone who failed to see the irony of it is hardly in a position to call me “small minded.”
Doesn’t anyone see the asinine contradiction of opposing abortion for women whose health is at risk while supporting autism care for birth defect children? Are you knee-jerk conservatives really that close-minded?
The only asinine thing here is you and your support for calculated murder.
While helping those with autism might be a laudable goal, I’m not sure adding more of these mandatory coverage requirements is the way to go. They’re a big reason we have high health-insurance costs today – states decide that this and that should be covered by all insurance. I find it hard to attack ObamaCare and then defend this. I’m guessing it’s because Republicans vote for it. After all, none of us complain about Romney starting ObamaCare in MA when he was governor.
Andrew, the reason there are mandates in health care is the same reason we need mandates in education: because the consumer doesn’t have a free market choice.
Employers really choose the health care plans people can choose. It’s not like buying car insurance or home insurance, where you can choose any darn company you want, and switch if you don’t like what you’re getting.
Schools are the same way. Most people can’t just take their children out of their assigned public school. The cost to do so is too great, and the options in many areas are limited.
Without the magic of the free market to address things, monopolistic tendencies dominate. Mandates become the only way to combat these things, because there is no free market pressure to compete for the consumers’ choice.
Isn’t the employer the consumer? And the cronyism created by the government on the limited choices of Health Insurance companies leaves alot to be desired. It use to be healthcare insurance, not healthcare.
As for education, it seems the mandates to restrict school vouchers is the reason you don’t have a choice. If we allowed vouchers than free market principles would apply. And our school systems would be much better. But the government wishes to manage that whole system.
Quite honestly, I have to agree with GovGirl and Andrew E, the government’s mandates are the reason for the decline in the whole healthcare system.
John, on education, any ability to choose would help, and I’ve long supported vouchers as a way to bring free market choice in education.
But we don’t have them.
And, yes, the employer is the consumer. So what are you or I to do if the employer’s choice is incompatible with our health care needs? Quit our jobs?
You don’t like mandates on monopolies? Neither do I.
Give me a solution.
Brian, I am a small business owner. People can and should purchase their own but it is being used as healthcare service rather than insurance.
I understand your passion on the subject and normally I side with you but not on this one.
The fix action is to allow people to manage their own problems. Politicians and third parties just distort the true solutions. Is more money or mandated treatments going to solve the problem of autism? If there is an antidote or pain management was needed, I could somewhat understand. But this is a lifestyle adjustment; a need to cope with an illness which man does not have the capability to solve at this time.
As harsh as that may sound, it is reality and their is not enough money to soften the impact. It is an illness that could actually draw a family more closely if they worked together rather than have the government as a crutch.
“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan
“The fix action is to allow people to manage their own problems.”
Allow?
Your position would MANDATE that they manage their own problems because insurance wouldn’t cover it.
What do you mean by “allow people to manage their own problems?”
I felt my explanation pretty much covered what was meant.
About as much as saying “I think we should allow people to breathe”
Exactly, allow people to breathe. But this government wants to regulate that too.
Wonderful, John. Outlaw insurance and everyone gets to huddle with their families and be brought closer together by disease.
Brilliant!
You’re confusing healthcare insurance and healthcare payments. Now you’re sounding like the Dems saying Republicans want to kill women.
Believe it or not, overcoming adversity can actually bring families together far more than a government bureaucrat throwing someone else’s money at them saying they care.
Great, John. I’ll remember that when you’re on Medicare.
It seems many of the arguments on this thread are grounded in a misunderstanding of what Brian is celebrating. Unless I’m mistaken, they have simply approved autism as a medical condition. As such, medical insurance must pay for medical treatments related. This does not seem outrageous to me. Considering that we insure against: pregnancy, obesity (by proxy), routine physical exams, alcohol poisoning, and, in many states, hair transplants(and that’s a short list); I think the unpredictable, non-self-inflicted onset of autism spectrum disorders is much more appropriate to insure.
The government is not paying more, insurance companies are. The fact is that as long as government regulations and tax policies heavily manipulate the healthcare industry, it will never react and adjust as a free market would. In the short term altering mandates is often the only reasonable route.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.