Quote :

"Some parents are making big financial sacrifices just so they can provide the care their children so desperately need. Many families faced with autism are so financially strapped they second mortgage their homes, live with other family members, even file bankruptcy, according to Autism Speaks, a national advocacy group. In order to provide the best care, Carol Nunez went to work full time and Rick Nunez stayed at home, providing 24-7 watch over Ethan. Although she has a good job in sales, the bills still amount to more than the family's monthly income. Costs for Ethan's applied behavior analysis, a relatively new therapy that has passionate advocates as well as critics, can run up to thousands of dollars a week, not including the cost for speech therapy, his medications and special schooling. Carol admits it's tough. "It's been extremely expensive," she said. "Between ABA therapy, the accommodations we had to make to the house, the special material we have to give him, it just adds up." But there is hope. A bill being considered by Virginia's General Assembly would require insurance companies to cover medical costs to treat autism. "

OH KNOWZ I MUSTS PAY UNEXPECTED EXPENSES WHEN I HAVE CHILDREN!

This is rediculous in my opinion. Parents often know way before birth if a child is going to be autistic. If they choose to rise to the challenge Sarah Palin style to raise an autistic kid than kudos. Regardless rather if its through taxes from the gov't or high premiums on my insurance I should not be forced to subsidize someone else's decision to raise an autistic kid beyond the normal education and healthcare costs that any other child receives. The high cost special programs and intensive therapy programs they opt to send their children to should be footed on their own dime.

Better yet they should not have children if they are inable to pay the costs.

Quote :

"ABA is intense, requiring 40 hours of therapy a week. which can cost up to $50,000 a year. Some therapists support it, but others don't. Yet parents say they should be able to give their children any treatment they feel works and not be socked with astronomical medical bills. "

I feel bad for the little tykes. Yet this does not change the fact that people to often in our society expect to receive goods/services in excess on someone elses nickle.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM. Reason : a]

10/22/2008 3:44:11 PM

Quote :

"Parents often know way before birth if a child is going to be autistic."

are you sure about that? ive always been under the impression that it's detected through behavior, which can't be done very acurately before and shortly after birth.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : s]

10/22/2008 3:51:19 PM

Quote :

"Regardless rather if its through taxes from the gov't or high premiums on my insurance I should not be forced to subsidize someone else's decision to raise an autistic kid beyond the normal education and healthcare costs that any other child receives."

This is the nature of insurance. It's inherently a "socialist" mechanism. There's already TONS of irresponsible decisions you're funding with your insurance payments, I would guess a plurality.

It seems to make sense to me if someone has insurance before they get pregnant, and the baby has health issues, that the insurance should cover it (assuming the family's not trying outlandish treatments).

10/22/2008 3:54:46 PM

^^maybe i am thinking of down syndrome.

Still though....

Quote :

"It seems to make sense to me if someone has insurance before they get pregnant, and the baby has health issues, that the insurance should cover it (assuming the family's not trying outlandish treatments). "

I see nothing wrong with a "Autism" insurance. This though should be seperate item women can elect with their medical insurance. Kinda like choosing comprehensive with your car insurance. This shouldn't be "Required" in the medical insurance that everyone gets.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM. Reason : a]

10/22/2008 3:59:14 PM

if it cant be detected before birth, then it totally kills your whole argument. the whole premise of insurance is to help alleviate unexpected costs. like moron said, as long as the family is not trying to get crazy off-the-wall and outragously expensive treatments, then this is really no different than any other insurance claim.

health insurance isnt like car insurance. you dont get to pick which disesases you want covered and which ones you dont.




[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : d]

10/22/2008 4:02:12 PM

we need more not for profit health insurance entities....encouraged by federal and state tax exemptions both to the provider and the consumer, where profit isn't the sole motive, but what profits there are can be reinvested into the network.

in the spirit of a type of co-op.

10/22/2008 4:11:47 PM

so, your (HUR) original argument is.....

1) if you can detect a handicap in the first trimester, you should abort.
2) if you choose not to abort, or if the handicap is not detected until later in the pregnancy, or even until after birth, then be prepared to accept any and all consequences completely upon yourself, even if that means financial ruin on the parents and family.

right?

10/22/2008 4:15:27 PM

^^^

Quote :

" Yet parents say they should be able to give their children any treatment they feel works and not be socked with astronomical medical bills. "

Quote :

"A bill being considered by Virginia's General Assembly would require insurance companies "

this is my problem



[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 4:24 PM. Reason : a]

10/22/2008 4:23:30 PM

mhum.... and again, it's almost as if you aren't aware of what insurance is for

10/22/2008 4:26:16 PM

unfortunately you have to require insurance companies to include coverage because they won't do it on their own. autism is relatively new to the scene and still not understood very well, so its not surprising that its not yet covered. this would change that.

i dont agree that they should be given "any" treatment they want, and i dont see any indication from what you posted that it would be included in the law. any insurance coverage is going to have some limitations.

10/22/2008 4:33:22 PM

Well I think home owners insurance should including flood. Maybe the gov't should require this too; since right now i have to get it seperate. Hurricane Katrina victims say thanks!

10/22/2008 4:41:32 PM

autism cannot be detected before birth. down syndrome can.

autism is marked by normal development and progress up to 14 months, then a loss of social skills like eye contact and language.

as of now, there is no way to predict this behavior before birth, even before 1 year of age in most cases.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : engrish]

10/22/2008 4:50:33 PM

wow, HUR hits a new low on the ignorance scale.

10/22/2008 5:08:30 PM

It's unfortunate, but autism rates are fairly high and it seems extremely expensive to deal with it. As it stands, Autism already costs taxpayers a lot of money.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html

And they're arguing that the 35 billion per year cost is an underestimate. I wouldn't go that far- I know people aren't willing to pay taxes to avoid very indirect and non-obvious costs. When you correlate something like that where causality is non-obvious its reasonable to be skeptical. What is clear is that there is a large direct cost since many children with Autism must be educated and cared for by the system directly. This is where the bulk of that conservative 35 billion estimate comes from.

Alright so let's say it is in our best interest to insure people against Autism and that we get some kind of 50%-150% return on the investment in terms of future costs avoided. Well that's all nice, but doesn't it make sense to spend some of that on researching preventing or curing Autism in early development? I mean if insuring against Autistic children is worth the cost, wouldn't researching preventative treatments be worth something too? It's annoying that these people who call for insurance companies to pay for Autism treatment stop short at what solves their financial problems and not solving the problem in general. I like the flood insurance reference though- it does make more sense for this to be a government insurance supplement program than forcing it on private insurance. How about government extention of private insurance? You by normal private health insurance, and the government extends it to cover Autism IF you insure at birth?

10/22/2008 5:24:33 PM

Im waiting to read something about "jorts"

10/22/2008 5:27:08 PM

I understand the notion of wanting to have insurance cover autism, as it certainly fits in with the idea of insurance in the first place: cover catastrophic medical scenarios. I can't easily say "hey, abort that fucker" or "snuff him out," especially given the the varying levels of autism.

At the same time, I don't like it, mainly because it's a one-off kind of thing. Either your kid gets autism or he doesn't, but you are still paying the premium for it, no matter what. That really can only increase premiums, frankly, and I don't see that as a good idea. Insurance covers heart attacks because any person could have one, at any time (over-generalized, yes, I know). Autism just isn't in the same categorie.

There must be a better way to address this issue than mandating that insurance cover autism. I like the idea of a separate "autism insurance," so-to-speak, that a person would purchase before the child's birth. But, I think the person would need to be required to pay those premiums for a certain period of time, even past the point where it is determined the child doesn't have autism. I'm not sure, though, how that would work. Either way, a government mandated program or requirement isn't the answer.

10/22/2008 5:37:15 PM

^^This is not the place for throwing around that portmanteau in such a slanderous fashion. I know plenty of people who wear jean shorts who are not autistic. Some of them are the good old fashioned kind of retarded and have excellent social skills.

^Yeah but having to buy health insurance completely peicemeal kind of kills its appeal to consumers. It would be like asking people to buy seperate aneurysm insurance. Also, the principal cost is not even health insurance related. It's in education and then later in socio-economic problems. Most adults I know who have autism collect welfare and don't hold jobs for more than a few months. They also tend to get into legal trouble in situations where simply being able to explain yourself or apologize properly could prevent a misunderstanding or police involvement.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2008 5:40:41 PM

so then you agree, at the very least, that lumping it in with health insurance as a mandated coverage requirement is probably not the best way to go.

10/22/2008 5:57:56 PM

Right, doing it through health insurance doesn't really make sense. In a way though, people with autism are far more likely to claim welfare and need special education, the government is already spreading the costs over the tax base through pre-existing but insufficient and inefficient services.

The problem is that these services don't address early development or fundamental research at all. Some states, such as NC does offer early education, speach therapy, and developmental therapy for children with autism. I think you have to make below a certain amount to qualify. These services are a good idea since early therapy and development help can prevent some of the very expensive problems later in life. The idea is that you help both the child and parents learn to work with the fact that the kid has autism and end up providing a much better home situation for all involved.

A real sort of insurance against autism would be in funding fundamental research into treatment and prevention. Then such treatment and prevention should be covered under health insurance since it would fall under medical purview.

10/22/2008 6:08:22 PM

Quote :

"There must be a better way to address this issue than mandating that insurance cover autism. I like the idea of a separate "autism insurance," so-to-speak, that a person would purchase before the child's birth. But, I think the person would need to be required to pay those premiums for a certain period of time, even past the point where it is determined the child doesn't have autism. "

There is, it has existed since the dawn of time to cover shipping or other one-off risks. What you do is pay a lump sum in cash to the company up front and then if your child has autism (or the ship sinks) they pay you a pre-determined lump sum back that is perhaps 1000 times what you gave them (depending on probabilities).

If you have another kid, or you decide to send your ship back to timbuktu, then you have to pay again.

Now, as this is a varying degree of autism, it is likely they will not pay a lump sum, instead granting you defined benefits to cover the varying expenses such as free tuition to then special schools.

If you want to go into business offering such insurance let us know. It might have a future. But you should call it birth insurance and cover all the common abnormalities (autism, handicaped, delivery complications, etc).

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/22/2008 6:12:40 PM

^ good idea actually

Quote :

"Yeah but having to buy health insurance completely peicemeal kind of kills its appeal to consumers. It "

They do this already. You can buy cancer insurance.

10/22/2008 7:01:09 PM

Yeah, but that's coverage in addition to the existing coverage to go above your lifetime maximum. Regular health insurace already covers cancer, but most people's lifetime maximum will be consumed before the cancer consumes them.

10/22/2008 7:22:08 PM

Quote :

"^^maybe i am thinking of down syndrome."

wow...

10/23/2008 11:46:07 AM

All autistic babies should killed.

Weed out the weak.

10/23/2008 12:04:16 PM

If you want to go for cold economic value- harvest them for parts and experimentation so you can reap a net profit off them rather than see a net loss.

So rather than weeding the weak, you can be feeding off the weak.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 12:05:45 PM