Lynnette wrote on July 10, 2008 09:14 PM: I am a mother of a 4 year old boy with autism I feel your comment is not what the autism community needs.
Do you know what we as parents go through to try to get our children services with or without insurance? Please step into our shoes before you make comments like that. One in every 150 child is effected with austim and the numbers are growing.
So what happens to the families who's insurance do not cover any therapies that all children with autism need to have a better quailty of life? I invite you into our world so you can see exactly what it is like.

Christine Kramar wrote on July 09, 2008 05:13 PM: Autism absolutely needs to be covered by health insurance. I have two children with Autism Spectrum disorder and up to this point have not had a claim denied, but I do not want to risk such happening in the future. As they get older what do you say is happening to them because of the autism, or another covered diagnosis.

I have doubts that the costs of covering children with autism would exceed that of conditions related to heavy drinking or smoking which Nevada already mandates coverage.

I did right by my children and by no fault of anyone they have autism, why do they have fewer rights than an child whose mother gave them Fetal Alcohol Syndrome which must be covered under health insurance in this state?

Susan wrote on July 04, 2008 07:48 AM: I understand the large bill submission. Much of it does sound like a wish list. However I was really sad that Autistic children were included in acupuncture coverage. Perhaps Autism was the important part of the bill that the acupunture people attached themselves to to get passed.
After my 18 month old child recieved his vaccinations he became catatonic and stopped speaking till age 5. IF only there had been some screaning for autism 6 years ago. Because it took till age 7 for a bonofide diagnosis, far to late for our family and son to recieve any compensation and so many years lost to treatment my little boy could have had.
I know everyone is screaming their kid has autism,mostly because of the media, but if real screaning was done, the genuinely autistic children could be found and helped... unlike my lost little boy with no help or resources.
Thanks,
Mrs. Susan Harrison
Fallon, Nevada

E. Westby wrote on July 04, 2008 01:48 AM: Well, actually; autism should be covered by insurance companies. As a matter of fact; investing in all people improves the world we live in.

What good is it to raise a healthy child in a world full of sickness? What good is it to raise an educated child in a world full of uneducated?
What good is it to be an adult in a world unfit to live in?

Sandy wrote on July 04, 2008 01:11 AM: It is unimportant like not breathing air unless it's you child who has to do without the air. Unfortunately many family's are drowning in the world because other are not persoanally affected by the fact they can't get a drink and look the other direction. If it were you family member the glass would look almost empty not even partly full. I guess it depends on where you are standing.

Bob S. wrote on July 03, 2008 04:35 PM: The editorial philosophy of the paper is Libertarian. Vin Suprynowicz, Assistant Editorial Page Editor is intimately associated with autism and has written several editorials about it. Check the archives.
My grandson has autism and I have paid to have the lab in Paris, France do the analysis for $1K. I help pay for the chelation drugs.
I would love to see more help for people having to deal with this heartbreaker. But, just as it is stupid for me to have to pay for maternity benefits as I am in my 60s, you shouldn't have to pay for geriatric benefits and other people who don't need it shouldn't have to pay for autism benefits. Ala Carte is the proper way for America. If you want a socialistic health care program, read the Sun.
If we can be forced to pay for illegals to go to school here, especially with the rotten job of educating that they do, we should get benefits from the school district.
We need a celebrity with a heart like Jerry Lewis to help with telethons and national awareness.
Finally, since part of the constitution is about the national welfare, we should demand from our politicians that research into a cure be done like a Manhattan Project. Why do we let them approve billions for Aids in Africa when we have our own problems which they are ignoring?
I want HSS to show me the gun pointed at his/her head says the company-provided health plan is all that's allowed. Also what California school told them that being anti-tax is oppressive? If you have an accident with your car, does your insurance rates go up? Your sarcasm reflects your education and leanings.

hss wrote on July 03, 2008 02:58 PM: First, Mr Summerlin were you to read the RJ editorials regularly, you would be overwhelmed by the oppressive anti tax drum beat pounded out on an almost daily basis and todays editorial follows suit. Today we're told what a silly idea it would be to spend the per-pupil national average on education. Sherman is against for one reason and one reason only. It would require the state to discharge its inherent obligation to educate the children of its citizens. An in reality Sherman is against adequate funding of education because he's so anti tax its almost humorous.

As to requring coverage for autism, he omits the fact that 90% or more of us have no choice in health coverage because it is employer provided and employers always choose the cheapest. so, unless the boss's kid is autisitic, no one would ever have the choice of getting that coverage. As to "why should I pay for your disease" mentality, thats what insurance is. Otherwise, why should I pay higher rates because all the other drivers in Vegas suck? Your though process suggest to me you were educated in a Nevada school!

Lori Kuhre wrote on July 03, 2008 01:53 PM: It is easy for many to have an "opinion" on something they have been blessed to never have had to deal with. It is a travesty that I pay hundreds of dollars a months for health care insurance and my son with autism is not allowed $1.00 towards speech therapy. Why should this type of bill ever have to be introduced? Caring for someones health is what these companies are supposed to do. Why should the medicaid and school systems have to pick up the bill for "health care" of our children? Why should the people of Nevada have to pay for my childs 15 minutes a week of speech therapy in school, when I pay for "health coverage" it is my healthcare companies responsibility, not the school districts and Medicaid. Why should any of us have high rates due to those who choose to smoke and then are diagnosed with lung cancer and a barrage of other healthcare problems as a direct result of a choice to abuse their bodies? Why should my costs be effected by a person who continually makes a bad choice to drink or stick a needle in their arm and go in and out of rehab year after year only to pick up that same drink or drug because they just can not say no? My son does not have the luxury to smoke, drink, shoot up, or take AUTISM, it gave us no choice.
Take a look at the real problem with healthcare costs, point the finger to the ones making the choices to abuse their bodies, it would be great if these same companies would deny treatment to smokers, drinkers, etc.. I would love to see the out cry then of those stating the injustice happening to them! Oh MY!

John Flamm wrote on July 03, 2008 01:39 PM: Jul. 03, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Here come the bill drafts

Regarding your comments in the above article, I am amazed how ill-informed you are regarding benefits paid for Autism services in Nevada. For example, did you know that most, if not all, Autism-related services are not covered under medical plans in Nevada. Many states have appropriately required insurers to provide coverage and in turn, the burden on taxpayers have been eased. We pay our premiums and more and more services are denied. What do you expect these families to do? Many turn to state or federally-funded programs to assist with some of the care, but most of the costs become the responsibility of the parents who desperately seek a future for their children stricken with this disease. The costs are staggering and often exceed $25,000 per year. These Nevada families are hard-working, insured, yet insurance refuses to cover services necessary to deal with children on the Autism Spectrum. I hope your not suggesting we abandoned these children and provide zero care. Would you deny medical services to a child with cancer or diabetes? Of course not, you'd think that absurd. We know early intervention works and need insurance providers to cover the costs of basic services. Please learn the facts before you pass judgement on such a crucial, life-saving issue. The future of my grandson, who bravely lives with the effects of Autism each day, depends on responsible, balanced, and informed reporting. Step up and report the facts regarding Autism.

Rob L. wrote on July 03, 2008 01:23 PM: Well thank you for bashing me but never addressing my point. Yes, a 21 year old shouldnt be forced to buy autism coverage or cancer coverage if that isnt what they need. I am very sorry for your plight but once again FOR THE CHEAP SEATS... Every person in the state of Nevada should not be forced to pay for autism coverage just because your kid has it!!!

Please rationally explain to me why a 60 year old or a 21 year old should be forced to have such coverage. Or how about a 35 year old with zero plans of having children? You cant.

The sad thing is that if the insurance companies didnt have to provide abortions, mental health coverage, viagra, drug rehab and dozens other things that they are forced to by government, you probably would be able to afford a good plan that DOES cover autism but feel free to bash the messenger if it makes you feel better about your lot in life.

And a special comment for Brian... First of all, I am not a professional writer and never used the word "scheme." You are mistaking me for the guy who wrote this editorial. Secondly, why should I be ashamed of myself? Because I have the audacity to point out how misguided this law is. If you are perfectly ok with 1) more people losing their health insurance because of endless mandates like this and 2) forcing the rest of the state to subsidize your medical care, then you owe me and everyone else an apology for being the very reason why health is damn expensive.

Read All Comments