Michigan Votes Forum

I am concerned with this section:  However, an insurer or health maintenance organization may confirm a diagnosis or review the appropriateness of a specific treatment plan in order to insure that coverage under this section is limited to diagnostic and treatment services.

I'd be interested to know what they consider the insurance companies ability to exclude treatments. Right now the insurance companies are saying that a bunch of "treatments" aren't proven treatments for autism, that autism can't be treated or cured, that behavioral therapy doesn't make any difference, or that it's a learning disorder and as such should be dealt with by the school's exclusively. The problem with that reasoning is there are TONS of doctors that agree on treatments for autism. There are TONS of familes who have gone through these treatments with significant improvements. It should be up to DOCTORS to decide what is right for their patients- not some insurance company!

 this bill is not about curing, or even treating autism. it is about exercising control over the insurance industry.

why is it 'suddenly' important to mandate autism coverage?

because it's a hot-button issue that will get dems votes if they force this down the throats of insurance companies.

Force this down the throats of insurance companies? LOL.When has anything ever been forced down the throats of the all powerful insurance companies?

It's suddenly important to mandate coverage for autism because insurance companies are good at one thing, collecting premiums. They're notoriously bad at providing coverage.

 seatbelt laws... no fault insurance... helmet or no helmet...

speed limits... accident report fees... mandatory proof of insurance...

shall i go on????

It is critically important that Michigan mandates autism (and any other related disorder) coverage.  Why?  Simply because there is a need, and the insurance companies are refusing to provide coverage.  It is quite unfortunate that this needs to happen---government should not be "mandating" anything unless there is a real need; and quite frankly there is.  I hope to God that no one ever has to deal with Autism or related disorders; but only if you are involved or have a friend or family member with an austism-related condition, you will notice that action is required.  This is taking too long; this needs to be passed into law now.

 so you are telling us that the only way to get autism coverage is to MANDATE IT BY GOVERNMENT FIAT?

have you tried buying an autism coverage policy? i'm sure that SOME INSURANCE AGENCY WILL COVER YOU FOR ENOUGH MONEY.

i'll bet you never considered autism coverage BEFORE you knew anyone with autism, did you? no... i guess not.

i know several people with autism, but none of them are my responsibility, nor are the tens of thousands of OTHER people with autism. perhaps if you cannot afford to take care of someone with autism, you should consider making them a ward of the state. then the citizens would be able to cover ALL their expenses, not just autism coverage.

you seem so intent on the state TAKING CARE OF THE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM, just turn them over and be done with it.

crazycajun:

i know several people with autism, but none of them are my responsibility

I don't know anyone with autism, but they are all my responsibility.

I will contact my representaive immediatly to encourage him to vote yes on this bill.

 then while you are at it.. send in a check for your portion of the state's payment for those autistic children.

i choose NOT TO PARTICIPATE. and only the iron fist of government can force me.

it seems that you cannot foist your will on others without that iron fist. wield it well.

That "iron fist" you refer to is democratic government, the will of the people, at least those willing to participate.

 you mean the WILL OF THE MOB?

banning smoking in MY bar is certainly not accomodating to the will of the people who pay the taxes from my business.

i COULD always STOP paying taxes by closing my doors and moving on. but that would only put this state further in the hole.

 and so far, those who participate have not voted to mandate autism coverage. if it's so important to you, and since YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM, then YOU PICK UP THE TAB FOR THEM.

you DID say that YOU were responsible for them, didn't you????

I did. And I will be more than happy to pay my share. I would much rather my tax dollars go to care for sick kids, than killing kids in Iraq.

Wouldn't you?

 kids who strap bombs to themselves to kill us die anyway.

you got a problem with that?

i didn't say to PAY YOUR SHARE.

I SAID pick up the tab. YOU WANT IT... YOU PAY FOR IT.

Okay, I'm starting to sense some misunderstanding on the purpose of this bill.

This bill is NOT- I repeat NOT for the state of Michigan to take care of autistic children. And taking care of a child with autism financially is not the problem. The problem is that if you PAY FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE YOURSELF THROUGH YOUR EMPLOYER AUTISM IS OFTEN NOT COVERED- AFTER YOU HAVE PAID FOR YOUR INSURANCE!!!!

Plain and simple. Most medical insurance companies have AUTISM EXCLUSION CLAUSES so they DON'T COVER a trip to a special therapist that your doctor told you to go to that would be covered for any reason OTHER than autism!!!  What is really ridiculous, is That is often the difference with these treatments. The difference between them being able to handle school, and get a job and live on their own later in life.

So, why don't they exclude coverage for smokers for any smoking related illnesses? No one in my entire family smokes- but I can guarantee that all of those smokers out their are being supplemented by my payments to my medical insurance premiums.

I just want my child who has Asperger's to be able to see therapists so that we can help him figure out how to live in this world. I could have him live with me and I could shield him from all of the things he can't cope with (I have no problem doing that right now because he is 10, however, I would like for him to learn to manage living in this world on his own and occupational therapy and behavioral therapy can help this- AND KEEP HIM FROM NEEDING STATE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE'S OLDER>

That's just my 10 cents.

 no, this bill is about mandating something through government fiat that should be managed through private business transactions.

You are correct about the intent of this bill mabenton. I apologize for getting off topic. I have already contacted my representative and encouraged him to support this bill. He noted that he is one of the sponsors. I believe the bill has a good chance of passing.

Good luck.

 we should oppose, and rightfully so, ANY attempt by government to impose ANYTHING upon it's citizens that is not the proper role of government.

this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with what is, and should be, the proper role of government.

This bill imposes nothing on it's citizens. This bill mandates insurance companies that sell health insurance to citizens of this state covers the treatment of autism, since it is a health issue. Very proper role for the government.

 are not the people who own the insurance company citizens? and please tell me where the basis for your assumption that it is the proper role of government to provide health care is in the constitution? and please, don't quote the preamble again, it's not in there either.

health care never has, and never will be the proper role of government. please tell me how government supplied health care is in any way conducive to good government? and while you are at it, please tell me what business is it of the government to control health care?

i know that the chances of you answering these questions is slim to none, but they are questions that need asking.

For those few of you who are against this bill - I just hope you never have any kids or family members that have autism.

Good luck.

uber-liberal:

are not the people who own the insurance company citizens? and please tell me where the basis for your assumption that it is the proper role of government to provide health care is in the constitution? and please, don't quote the preamble again, it's not in there either.

health care never has, and never will be the proper role of government. please tell me how government supplied health care is in any way conducive to good government? and while you are at it, please tell me what business is it of the government to control health care?

i know that the chances of you answering these questions is slim to none, but they are questions that need asking.

You are quite correct. I will not answer those questions here, as they are not particular to the subject. The discussuion is not about the government providing healthcare, it is about the government forcing insurance companies who sell healthcare coverage to provide it. Very much the role of government, as is stated in the preamble to the constitution, which I will quote. "promote the general welfare".

Apparently that means something else to you than to me. So be it. I support the bill, have expressed my support, and will continue to do so, on my terms, not yours. I expect you will do the same. That is your right, and mine.

jmangan:

You are quite correct. I will not answer those questions here, as they are not particular to the subject. The discussuion is not about the government providing healthcare, it is about the government forcing insurance companies who sell healthcare coverage to provide it. Very much the role of government, as is stated in the preamble to the constitution, which I will quote. "promote the general welfare".

 tell me, "j". how is forcing the insurance companies to provide a specific type of coverage to a specific group of people at the mandate of the full might and power of the government promoting the GENERAL WELFARE? the general public, those citizens you say that laws are meant to provide for, all do not share in the condition of autism.

this bill does not provide for the GENERAL welfare, only the welfare of a select few. by the way, what specific "coverage" are we talking about? what treatments specifically are currently not covered that those "special few" citizens want covered? are these treatments leading up to a CURE for autism, or simply a treatment of the symptoms?

so these 'special few' citizens want EVERY possible treatment for autism covered? and how do these treatments add to THE GENERAL WELFARE?

you aren't very specific about that, and you are not very convincing that this bill will provide anything beneficial for the GENERAL WELFARE, only for the welfare of a very specific sub-set of citizens with a very specific problem. i understand that universal healthcare is the stated goal of the left in this country, but that does not make it the RIGHT THING TO DO. this bill should not pass specifically because it mandates special treatment for special people.

i could understand taking steps to make available a specific treatment shown to CURE autism, or even a specific treatment that would universally alleviate the symptoms of the condition itself, but this bill doesn't specify that. it just mandates "coverage" for autism treatment. 

no, the "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE" boat simply doesn't float on this issue. but it WAS a nice try. 

It doesn't float in your water, but thankfully, at least for those suffering from this condition, your water is just a pond, not the ocean.

To promote the general welfare doesn't mean that everyone needs to benefit indiviually from each law. It means that we all need to benefit in general. It would stand to reason that not all of us are going to get the same diseases or medical conditions. I'm surprised I need to explain that to you. Therefore an insurance company that sells healthcare insurance should be required to cover treatments medically recognized to either cure or treat a medically recognized disease or condition.

It's as simple as that. If autism is a recognized medical condition, which it is, then health care insurers should be required to provide coverage for medically approved treatment.

As for all your questions, it is incumbant on you to provide those answers, not me. Being against something by insisting the person for it justifies his advocacy by meeting your requiements doesn't wash, contrary to what crazy may have taught you. If I were to provide precise answers for your questions, you would still be against it based on ideology. You ask your questions to suit your preconcieved ideas. So be honest and say your against it because your against anything the government mandates. That's an honest stand to take, why be ashamed of it?

Just imagine you are explaining to the parents of an autistic child who have bought health insurance, only to discover it doesn't cover the treatments needed for their child, that because of your ideology against government intrusion in our lives, they should just let their child go untreated or try to pay for the treatment themselves, even though they have insurance. Call me a bleeding heart, but that's what government is all about. Everyone, especially the less fortunate among us, getting a fair shake in life.

You have my permission to pin this on your board at the cafe.

 it is incumbent upon the parents of that autistic child to get the best health care possible. it is not incumbent upon the state to provide it for them, nor is it incumbent upon the taxpayers to pay for the provision of that health care. if the parents get a policy for their child, it is up to the parents to discover whether or not it covers autism treatments.

there should be no explanation. it is the same as if that parent had a child with asthma. it's not up to me to make sure that their insurance covers asthma. it's up to them.

why is the government even getting involved with whether or not those parents have insurance in the first place?

it's not the proper role of government to provide health insurance, or to assist them in forcing insurance to cover their specific needs. you call yourself a bleeding heart, and rightfully so. but your heart should bleed your money not mine. you are free to donate as much of your income to this cause as you see fit, but you are not free to donate one red cent of mine. because some legislator has spent time at my expense to draft this, i feel that i, as a taxpayer, have already spent too much on it. it should not have even been considered, much less actually drafted. it is poor law, and writing poor law is poor statesmanship. i don't know about you, but i didn't elect my representatives to write poor law. 

jmangan:

It doesn't float in your water, but thankfully, at least for those suffering from this condition, your water is just a pond, not the ocean.

<and their water is also just a pond, not the whole ocean. and that boat still don't float.>

To promote the general welfare doesn't mean that everyone needs to benefit indiviually from each law. It means that we all need toi benefit in general.

<i don't benefit one little bit from the state forcing insurance companies to provide autism coverage. in fact, i am one of the ones who will have to pay a penalty. so are you, but you can spend your money as you wish.>

 It would stand to reason that not all of us are going to get the same diseases or medical conditions. I'm surprised I need to explain that to you. Therefore an insurance company that sells health care insurance should be required to cover treatments medically recognized to either cure or treat a medically recognized disease or condition.

<the statement was made along that very line. but as far as this bill is concerned, it mentions no cure, no treatments, nothing specific. according to several parents who have autistic children in my immediate circle, there IS NO CURE for autism, and no specific treatments that work to make the condition better. the best hope is therapy that will make future independence possible. what i find amazing is that all of the people in my immediate circle oppose this bill as well. so yes, i HAVE explained my position to them, face to face, and they agree with me. they also have insurance that covers the therapy that their children are recieving.>

It's as simple as that. If autism is a recognized medical condition, which it is, then health care insurers should be required to provide coverage for medically approved treatment.

<a.i.d.s. is a recognized medical condition, and insurance companies are not required to provide coverage for it. asthma is a recognized medical condition, and insurance companies are not required to provide coverage for it. you believe that it should. why don't you start your own insurance company to do exactly that?>

As for all your questions, it is incumbant on you to provide those answers, not me.

<why not? they were being asked of you, the least you could do is answer them. your refusal to answer simple questions says a lot about your integrity and ethics. your willingness to use other's money to solve your problems shows a lot about your citizenship.> 

 Being against something by insisting the person for it justifies his advocacy by meeting your requiements doesn't wash, contrary to what crazy may have taught you. If I were to provide precise answers for your questions, you would still be against it based on ideology.

<perhaps if you answer precisely, it might change his preconcieved ideas. precise, or even imprecise answers have been known to change people's minds, and you are not only talking to me and the ooober-dude, you are addressing the entire state.>

 You ask your questions to suit your preconcieved ideas. So be honest and say your against it because your against anything the government mandates. That's an honest stand to take, why be ashamed of it?

<no one is ashamed, we are just asking you to justify the taking of freedom. you seem to be ashamed to do that.>

Just imagine you are explaining to the parents of an autistic child who have bought health insurance, only to discover it doesn't cover the treatments needed for their child, that because of your ideology against government intrusion in our lives, they should just let their child go untreated or try to pay for the treatment themselves, even though they have insurance.

<read my response above. i would also advise those parents to contact other parents of autistic children and find out who insures them. it is accessable from here, it is available here, and it doesn't need to be mandated. the 'market' has already taken care of it. it may not be covered in YOUR policy, but there are insurance companies that cover it. keep looking and you will find one.>

 Call me a bleeding heart, but that's what government is all about. Everyone, especially the less fortunate among us, getting a fair shake in life.

<no, what government is about is treating everyone EQUALLY, not fairly. equal justice under law.>

You have my permission to pin this on your board at the cafe.

<don't need your permission. it's already there, thoroughly discussed, and duly noted which questions you refused to answer.

Crazycajun has an opinion and about HB 4334, HB 4183, HB 4198, and SB 255.

And, that's fine.  That's his/our right.

Except he appears to hate everything.  Can everything, that's EVERYTHING about Granholm and government in general be THAT bad?  I'm no fan of Granholm, but when I see nothing but complaints on lots of posts by ONE person, I just ignore the comments made by that person.  When the company whiner starts walking my way, I go the other way.

 valueplus has an opinion. he seems to hate crazycajun.

He seems to make a good case for doing so.

 so you aren't here to put forth your opinion on anything other than hating crazycajun. or do you just hate conservatives in general and decided to start by persecuting him?