Where does the state get its authority to tell business how to run its business?
Is this a state attempt to put private insurgence companies out of business so
the state can take full control of funding hostipatl growth and expanding health
care cost? Utah does not have the right to change and alter
entitlements to federal medicaid funds, I don't care how many laws they write to
take control of federal laws. And the State does not have the right to madate
coverage of any private business or Medicare or Medicaid. These
kinds of laws turn out the lights of business, even insurance companies and its
time the state government get in line with in the rights of private business
rights and stop this nonsense legislation.Utah is wasting billions
of dollars of the Federal Medicaid funds every working taxpayer it belongs too?
The State has the audacity to claim that Medicaid is their property, it belongs
to the taxpayers and 49 other states, not the Utah department of welfare. Utah
governments wasteful and illegal spending of medicaid is criminal.
The state is trying to blindside taxpayers again, to the tune of billions of
dollars of increased taxes.The only reason they want forced
insurance coverage is so the state board of education can bill insurance
companies for special education teachers as medical doctors. It will put health
care in our education budget, where it doesn't belong. We must keep health care
and education segregated and this laws is another deception by education and a
greater burden on the taxpayers and taxes without representation. If education
and health care become unified, we lose more of our rights and loss of incomes
and increased health care costs at a time when the economy and incomers is in
the gutter. More grueling taxes and punishment for those living in poverty in
Utah. Poverty is the state of the economy and its time to stop government
expansion and costs.
All physical and mental illnesses and injuries should be covered by insurance,
not just those currently considered as 'approved' conditions.
Government mandated insurance coverage is not the answer.
Wait a minute!Isn't this Obamacare? A Republican pushing for health
insurance that might actually provide help for people instead of big bucks for
I also believe that "making an investment in the child at an early age can
save the state..." money over the long run, and having insurance in place
would be a good thing. Since it could also be a challenge to small business
owners to increase the coverage, though, the state should also give some type of
equivalent tax credits to businesses with the insurance, whether or not the
insurance is required by law. This is particularly important, when all
employers are not required to offer insurance to their employees in the first
While this article demonstrates the need for early care for autistic children, I
believe we should be very cautious in demanding or legislating that private
insurance cover this or any specific care. Private insurers should be free to
cover what they want, and purchasers of that coverage are responsible to know
what their coverage is. What we are creating in the US particularly is an
environment where we look to government to legislate a resolution for every
issue. We legislate that there be no mistakes, and when there are there must be
a lawsuit and punitive compensation. In many realms we have created so many
regulations that it actually fosters mistakes, delays, and inefficiency. It is
the mentality that someone else should be responsible for resolving our
When will Utah Republicans stop acting like liberal Democrats?
I have always said that Utah's opposition to anything "Federal" is
only because Utah themselves don't control the "whip". As
"Obamacare" sees the need for a mandate, especially for young people,
now we see a good instance where a "state mandateed" policy is
reasonable for autistic. Actually what's wrong with a mandate that solves a
societal problem? If it works for the good of all, Democrats and Republicans ?
Nothing. The only thing wrong with Obama's reqiuired mandate is that it was
passed by Obama. Bob Dole,Jack Kemp,Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (Republicans
all)all sought mandates when they advanced their health plans. Only Rommney was
successful. But along comes a first year US Senator that is black and has the
gall to run for US President and promise the people healthcare for all. And lo
and behold he does both. Ergo the opposition!!
What many people don't understand is that they are paying for INEFFECTIVE
treatment for autism right now in the form of special education services, long
term care services and other public programs to the tune of about 3.2 million
dollars per person with autism. If they are treated they stand a 47% chance of
achieving normal functioning and contributing to society rather than costing
society millions of dollars. So not only are families and individuals burdened
by inability to access quality medical care for autism - the state is burdened
with a huge bill for a large population of untreated individuals with autism. In
addition - the schools are required by law to accommodate children with autism
whether they are treated or not. An untreated child with autism disrupts the
entire classroom and lessens the quality of education for everyone involved. It
is as big of a problem for families affected by autism as it is for families
with children in the public school system with children who are untreated for
I hate to tell ya', but autism is being redefined. Some three quarters of the
people who qualify as autistic under the current definition won't qualify under
the new definition.Society needs to stop using autism as a crutch
and an excuse. Most kids diagnosed with it are actually just fine.
Early intervention is the key to successful, independent adults. It's cost
effective to help these children early. I've worked in group homes with autistic
adults. My son reached all his mile stones including speaking in sentences at 17
months. He started to lose his speech, balance, muscle tone and became allergic
to most of the food he ate. He's come a long way with early intervention. Our
insurance company told us if our son was addicted to drugs then they would cover
his therapies. He isn't on drugs he has autism. If you see us in public, our son
is not "just fine". He needs help communicating his needs &
processing his senses. We're doing everything possibly can please help stop
insurance discrimination. We pay insurance premium, taxes and work really hard.
I pray for a brighter future for our children.
Serving hundreds of families with autism, I can tell you I have met many who
either refuse to get a diagnosis (for fear of rejection from insurance carriers)
and many others who do not talk publicly about their child's diagnosis for fear
that their child will be "labeled". I do not know of any who use an
autism diagnosis as a crutch or an excuse. The process of obtaining
an autism diagnosis is difficult, time consuming, expensive and (God forbid an
affirmative diagnosis) an emotionally devastating experience. It seems unlikely
that there is a plausible motive for parents or physicians to improperly
diagnose a child with autism that is "actually fine". The majority of
parents of children with autism that I have served would do anything within
their power to help their child with autism. They are not interested in pity,
attention or excuse. They just desperately want their child to receive the
medical services that have been empirically proven to increase their chances of
achieving normal functioning from 2% (without treatment) to 47% (with
treatment). Let's not miscategorize autism parents as seeking for
anything more than a parent of a child with diabetes, cancer, bi-polar disorder
or any other medical condition. They seek only what the rest of us who purchase
health insurance seek: Coverage for medical conditions. They are happy to pay
their premiums that cover a wide range of conditions their family (thankfully)
is not enduring. They would never say: "It's not fair that I have to pay
for someone else's child's leukemia." It is as reasonable for them to ask
that their child's medical condition be covered as it is for them to pay
premiums that covert their neighbor's insulin pump.
"Her recent study showed that in 2008, 1 in 77 Utah 8-year-olds were
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, compared to one in 110 nationally. The
difference may be attributed to more awareness and better diagnosis within Utah,
but she noted it's an increase over earlier studies."Delta-Foxtrot, I agree with your opinion. Austism is one of the most most
mis-diagnosed "diseases" in the last decade. Why? Because benefits
are available. I personally am aware of two single parents in this State who
went doctor shopping and each had one of their boys diagnosed as high
functioning austistic. Not a thing wrong with these kids. But the disagnosis
gave these parents a few hours of free child care each week and many other free
benefits. For some, its a scam and they spread the word to their friends.
Their kids attend public school, play sports, get decent grades, etc., but are
now labelled as being autistic and that label will now never be removed.
My son has autism, as do 1 in 77 children in Utah growing up today. This number
is beyond the national average. Treatment does indeed break the bank of a
family trying to provide an opportunity for a child to grow into a productive,
independent tax paying citizen of Utah. Without insurance support that I
currently do not enjoy, I will do everything in my power to support my son with
scientific and evidence supported treatments for him. I will exhaust my saving's
this year. Without the treatments that this legislation would support, the
children who will grow to adulthood will become a responsibility of the state as
they consume state services. We can pass the buck again at our own peril and
look to bankrupt the state when these children reach adulthood and begin
consuming taxpayer subsidized services. 29 States in the Union currently have a
similar law in the books. 70% of the American population resides in those
states. We have another opportunity to safeguard the state against that future.
The purpose of this bill is to stop discrimination against a growing group of
people. Most people don't realize that not only are insurance companies not
required to cover medically necessary services for people with autism, but they
can refuse to cover them at all. If insurance companies refused to cover hearing
aides for a deaf child, we would all find that ridiculous and wrong. So why
don't we feel the same way about autism?Imagine finding out that
your child has autism, but your insurance won't pay for therapies. You now have
two choices: let your child fall behind and become dependent on others and
society, or pay for the therapies yourself. And when the therapies cost more
money than you have? Do you start selling your possessions, maybe take out a
second mortgage? Or do you give up on your child, write him/her off as a
failure? These are choices thousands of families in Utah are faced with.The article says that 47% of ASD kids who receive ABA treatment can live
a "normal" life. What it doesn't mention is that 100% of children
receiving treatment will see a significant improvement in ability and their
quality of life. This bill isn't trying to force people and
companies to pay for others. It is stopping insurance companies from
discriminating against people with autism. As I recall, discrimination is not
something we accept in the United States.
I work with kids with autism doing ABA treatment. These kids have serious
difficulties they need to overcome and CAN overcome with the right therapy.
Children who previously would have been destined to depend on disability and the
state their entire lives are now going to school, getting jobs, paying taxes and
contributing to society. I've seen this happen to these children. The problem is
that when the parents can't afford the therapy and treatment then what? I am so
excited for this bill that will end up saving the state millions of dollars and
helping thousands of kids reach their full potential. I'll be cheering this bill
Re: one old man | 7:35 a.m. Jan. 20, 2012 The US Supreme Court is
going to rule on Obamacare at the end of their current term ..... just before
the 2012 elections. Care to place a bet on the outcome? Hint: It will be 5 to
4 and Obama won't like their decision.
No matter how noble the intent, there is no moral justification for using force
to take from one person to give to another.
It's not the kid's fault or the parents fault when a child is diagnosed with
Autism. To sweep it under the rug, and not deal with a life-long situation is
bad - but to neglect a child from getting the help they need in the first 5
years of their lives to become productive people is really taking and handing
off the issue to society as a whole. Maybe premiums might be a bit more, but it
is something to truly consider in the overall moral consciousness of society.
This is a step that many states have taken for long term savings on healthcare
spending, for a disorder that affects 1 in 77 children in Utah. I've worked over
three years as a behavioral therapist working with children with autism. We
currently have ten students but have a waiting list several times that. Early as
possible intervention is key with autism, and this reform will do a lot to help
out the autism community in a big way.
A cute story starts with lego bricks and I read on patiently and learn that a
politician is trying to enforce more insurance on us.Nothing is
stopping medical insurance companies offering insuramce for autism, nothing is
stopping people from buying such insurance, nothing is stopping people from
giving generously to this as well as other causes.The biggest
problem is the loss of integrity, character and freedom in what is now routinely
dubbed "the greatest country the world has ever known". We stand for
nothing if we do not stand for freedom and character. Failing that no amount of
laws will compensate or save us from ourselves.
Insurance wouldn't offer coverage for breast reconstruction after cancer if not
required by law. Insurance wouldn't cover for mammograms, infertility diagnosis,
the list goes on and on. Nothing stopping insurance companies for providing?
Nothing stopping people from buying insurance where it is covered? It's not
available. Doesn't count toward out of pocket as its not covered. Just like
reconstruction after breast cancer, they cover it when required by law. You
think the insurance company is the best to decide what is medically necessary?
It's a for profit business.
This is long overdue, mental health been on the back burner for a long time.
These children will eventually end up care of the state either in the medicaid
system, special education, or even the prison system. We need to address this as
an investment in our children.When my autistic son goes for a mental
health appointment, the copay is $96, regular doctor copay is $25. What gives?
Simple parity is not asking to much!