 |
 |
By Wayne Rohde
The Oklahoma Legislature will be considering Nick’s Law, introduced by Sen. Gumm-D, Durant, Sen. Anderson-R, Enid, and Sen. Easley-D, Tulsa, which would allow parents to obtain a timely diagnosis and seek clinically proven and effective treatments for their children with autism.
Nick’s Law is the cornerstone for providing a wholesale and systemic change in the way families in Oklahoma care for their autistic children. Private insurance companies would be required to cover the diagnosis, treatment and medically necessary therapies these children must have to become independent adults and to escape from the iron claws of autism.
Autism is the fastest-growing disease in the country; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, autism is more prevalent than all pediatric cancers, AIDS, Down syndrome and diabetes combined. Autism affects 1 in 150 children nationwide.
Costs to diagnose and effectively treat this disability can range from $2,000 to $5,000 per month or more, depending on the severity. About 400 to 500 children will be diagnosed with autism each year.
In 2008, Arizona passed similar legislation, along with Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Illinois, and Florida. South Carolina and Texas passed their autism legislation in 2007. There will be no less than 26 states in 2009 that will introduce or re-introduce similar legislation, including Oklahoma.
This past year was a challenge, and also a real eye opener for typical citizens to understand the workings of the state capitol. Last session, we went to the capitol and talked with our legislators about the merits of Nick’s Law; we showed them pictures of our children, told them our stories, and explained the struggles in our daily lives. We sent letters, emails, faxes, and pictures.
In the Senate we were able to get Nick’s Law passed as an amendment to a few bills, but then the problems began.
In the House, politics became more important than the business of the people. Instead of being able to be heard in a committee, partisan maneuvering was the name of the game. We were denied the opportunity to be heard, yet others in the committee room were given that very same opportunity. We were called a mob, yet all we did was stand quietly in the committee room with pictures of our children.
There are many reasons FOR why Nick’s Law is the right thing to do. There were many excuses given to stop this bill from becoming law.
We were told that autism needed to be studied further. Now that the interim studies have been conducted, how are the results going to be used to stop this growing epidemic?
We have been offered tax credits, insurance policy riders, increased state services, and other suggestions have also been given as possible solutions. We have also been informed, that because of the problem of the uninsured in our state, adding a mandate will cause more people to become uninsured. These are all excuses, and they are all BULL, plain and simple.
A recent Oklahoman editorial suggested that all mandate proposals should have a cost-benefit analysis. We offered Nick’s Law with an actuarial study last session. The study was transparent and the methodology was accepted by four other state legislatures. Yet it was purposely misinterpreted to defend the notion that Nick’s Law would have a dramatic effect on insurance costs.
Offering tax credits is not an effective or efficient way to handle the problem. Most parents are struggling to pay for the therapies now; we cannot wait several months to have tax credits offset our state income tax. By the way, can we obtain a $ 30,000 or even a $ 60,000 tax credit each year?
Medical Insurance Riders do not exist for the simple reason that the people purchasing them are the same that will be filing the claims; in other words, A insures B insures C insures A.
Proposing increases to state services is a non-starter. The state currently has a 4 to 5 year wait on the Medicaid waiver. Medicaid does not even cover the most effective treatments. In addition, to suggest we fund state services more means tax increases to all of us. There is not enough state money to fund services to all of the families affected by autism.
A recent announcement from a large insurer that there will be coverage for autism without any significant cost to their members, provided some hope and a wonderful start to the new year. However, once details were released, all the excitement was met with disappointment. No new solutions and a denial of clinically proven and medically necessary behavioral therapy known as ABA (Applied Behavioral Analysis).
Now we are hearing that Oklahoma is not ready for another mandate because of the lack of practitioners. Let me address that by using free market principals and empirical evidence from other states that have passed legislation similar to Nick’s Law. The reason for the lack of practitioners is because there is no method of payment for these services, other than out of pocket reimbursements from parents or very limited Medicaid payments.
Do you think that orthopedic doctors would practice in areas where the only method of payment for services is out of pocket payments? No!, and neither should qualified therapists who will treat children with autism. Once other states passed legislation, practitioners and specialists started to open clinics and provide services. They are flocking to these states.
By defending the anti-insurance mandate mantra, our Legislature is driving Oklahoma to state-run and paid for health care. Eighty percent of these children are younger than 16; without effective treatment, the first big wave of these children will be applying for state and federal services in less than three years. This coincides with the first big wave of retiring baby boomers.
It’s time to seriously discuss why Nick’s Law is good for the children and adults with autism, it’s good for the taxpayers of Oklahoma, and it’s the right thing to do.
Wayne Rohde (a true Reagan Republican)
OK Legislators’ Blog: Another Chapter in the Struggle – Senator Jay Paul Gumm
Nick’s Law & Autism Legislation in Oklahoma blog: Dr. Jepson Seminar on Financial Impact of Autism
By Senator Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant
Hello again, everybody! The biggest battle in the Legislature last session was our fight to require health insurance to cover autism.
Now that campaign season is fully underway, that fight is being played out in campaigns across the state. Dozens of candidates for the Legislature – of both political parties – are announcing their full-throated support for “Nick’s Law,” while those who oppose it are desperately scrambling for any political cover they can find.
Case in point is the dog-and-pony show being conducted by the leadership in the House of Representatives. Keep in mind this is the same leadership team that killed “Nick’s Law” without so much as a vote.
They have commissioned an interim study to look at health care reform. One of their first witnesses was the executive director of a Washington, D.C. group that exists solely to oppose policies like “Nick’s Law.” The term “special interest group” is a pretty accurate description of this organization. This was hardly an unbiased first step for a supposedly fair and balanced study. Read more…
By Rep. Jason Murphey
Last week, I explained how hard government officials will work to meet their funding needs by trying to convince people to pay higher taxes, instead of working hard to make ends meet without passing on the higher bill. Many times, this is accomplished by claiming that any number of Armageddon-type scenarios will most certainly occur if people do not agree to increase taxes.
I also explained how that in my years of watching local, state and federal government activities, I have never felt that any of the many proposed increase have been needed.
This year, for instance, the Oklahoma Senate passed an amendment to a House bill that would increase your driver’s license fee by several dollars. The fee increase was to be used to support the funding of driver examination stations all across Oklahoma. The rumor circulated that if the fee increase did not pass, many rural examinations would be closed and prospective drivers from all across the state would be forced to drive many miles and wait in very long lines in order to receive their driver’s licenses. Read more…
We told you to watch for a sellout: the sale starts now!
House Speaker Chris Benge is starting his “Sold Out” tour this week. The Speaker has bought into the CNG con being perpetuated by some rich Oklahoma and Texas con artists, and somewhere Al Gore is laughing his fat behind off at yet another Republican seduced by Ponzi-scheme solutions for Gore’s contrived global warming fantasy.
And what will the con artists get? The politicians who have sold out won’t want you to know, but here it is: a built-in market for their natural gas and, dare we say, monstrous amounts of tax credits. We also suspect legislation to require the entire state fleet of vehicles to run CNG, and you can bet the taxpayers, not the con artists, will be footing the bill.
It’s just the latest con job (remember ethanol?) foisted on the public by opportunists seeking to exploit America’s anger toward the energy situation. Do you remember natural gas promoters spending millions last year to stop a coal-fired electricity plant? Do you recall the results? higher prices for Oklahoma electricity consumers! If going green is so great, why does it feel like a prostate examination?
Remember the famous words: those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Apparently Mr. Benge slept through that part of history class.
So here’s a primer: when demand goes up, prices go up, and when demand drops, price drops! And we know what’s going to happen to supply if millions upon millions of Americans spend billions upon billions of dollars on retrofitting their cars and start burning CNG: lower supplies and higher prices. To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, after you spend thousands and thousands converting your vehicle to CNG, and millions of Americans start using CNG, the price will go up. Oh, and by the way, if millions stop using gasoline, the price of gasoline will go down.
Here’s our new slogan: CNG, it isn’t a bargain for long!
Remember the words of PT Barnum: there’s sucker born every minute. By the way, we thought you would enjoy a look back at some of history’s most famous con artists in light of today’s “Sold Out Tour.” It will help remind you that really foolish people are often taken advantage by con artists. It kind of puts things in perspective, doesn’t it.
Related:
The Oklahoman: Oklahoma House speaker touts natural gas as part of Oklahoma’s energy strategy
Seems that one of our lawmakers readers took issue with a post Rep. Murphey wrote for our legislators’ blog titled, “Paying Professional Politicians.” Here’s an excerpt:
The following comment was left on that post by “The_real_powerbroker.”
Why is a pay raise a bad thing? Do we want citizen legislators or millionaires who can afford to not receive a paycheck.
Jason may have the financial means to live on less, but let’s be real, $40,000 is not that much for alot of citizen legislators. If that person has a family with 2 or 3 kids, can they be encouraged to quit their job and represent the people?
And don’t give me this B.S. about it being part time. Although session is 5 months,legislators are working throughout the year.
Plus, unless you’re a lawyer, own your own business, or have a sweetheart deal with a company who expects you to vote their way, most companies won’t employ someone 6 months out of the year.
And yes I know people live on less, but do leaders? Do I want Billy Ray who felt he’s “made it” when he gets to work the Drive-thru window at Taco Bueno to decide legislation that will affect us all? Or do i want the guy or gal who’s working middle management, or an account executive who has the aspiration to change the world for the better, but doesn’t want to downgrade their house, car, etc to represent the people.
So what does that leave us? People to whom 40,000 is plenty, have a union job that will pay them salary even when they are in session, or have enough money that they don’t need a salary in the first place?
And who does this leave out? Middle Class people making $50,000- $100,000 that usually bear the brunt of most of the tax hikes, insurance bills, and other useless laws that are passed by people either on the dole by a special interest, or enough money that it doesn’t affect them in the first place.
I’ve know several good leaders who went back into the private sector because they couldn’t afford to live on the salary.
From The McCarville Report Online Blog yesterday:
Bullet-Proof: Republican Rep. Randy Terrill, having survived an all-out assault in the primary over his sponsorship of the state’s new immigration law, is now viewed by many as politically bullet-proof. Said a GOP consultant: “His enemies shot their wad in the primary and he killed ‘em. He’s got bigger bullets than they do. So what’s next: Terrill for governor?”
It’s pretty clear that the attempt by the pro-illegal alien lobby to rub out State Rep. Randy Terrill has failed. Terrill’s beaten his opponent in the November election twice before, with the Democrat failing to break 30%. It’s over: as we’ve stated before, Randy Terrill, love him or hate him, is going back to the House of Representatives as Chairman of the Revenue and Tax Committee.
But what about the cabal of characters that attempted to push a button on Terrill? The chamber of commerce/Chesapeake/Devon/Express Personnel/Fast Eddie Kelley gaggle did indeed try to ruin Terrill’s career. They were even joined by some of those involved in that ridiculous lawsuit against Oklahoma over driver’s license tests not offered in the Iranian language. Although hapless and incompetent, (that last-minute spin on Terrill’s bankruptcy by Kelley and other liberals was just awesome, huh?) they did try to politically assassinate Terrill, using his words.
So what now? All eyes will shift to Speaker Chris Benge. Up until now, groups attempting political harm to a member of the legislative leadership are usually called into the woodshed. But there is some suspicion that may break tradition and not punish the conspirators. Why? The promise of campaign money, perhaps?
One year ago at this time Benge was the Chairman of the powerful Appropriations and Budget Committee, but not seen as a potential political leader in former Speaker Lance Cargill’s team, and was not even the second choice for speaker when Cargill resigned as a result of the campaign finance scandal revealed by OKPNS and News9’s Stacey Cameron. Some insiders say he may be too timid to do what’s right: punish those who tried to harm one of his leaders. If he doesn’t there will be repercussions from members, and there are plenty of Terrill supporters in the House Republican Caucus.
This story bears watching, and we will.
Developing…
Art by Rafael Calonzo, Jr (Supersonicsoul.com)
Can it be done? We are willing to give it a try! Read between the lines for the hidden meanings, inuendos and outright lies below…
Oklahoma City to be third NBA team to own D-League affiliate
TULSA, Okla. — Oklahoma City’s new NBA team will buy its NBA Development League affiliate in Tulsa.
Clay Bennett, the chairman of the Oklahoma City team’s ownership group, joined the team’s general manager, Sam Presti, and D-League president Dan Reed for the formal announcement of the deal on Thursday.
When the purchase of the Tulsa 66ers is complete, Oklahoma City will be the third NBA team to own its D-League affiliate. The Los Angeles Lakers own the Los Angeles D-Fenders and the San Antonio Spurs own the Austin Toros.
Bennett said the NBA team will pay $2.25 million for the D-League franchise.
In June, the team formerly known as the Seattle SuperSonics changed its D-League affiliate from the Idaho Stampede to the 66ers. The Tulsa team had also been serving as the minor-league club for the Milwaukee Bucks.
Bennett said that by purchasing the D-League team, Oklahoma City will be able to oversee the 66ers’ business operations and better develop Oklahoma City’s younger players who might be sent to Tulsa.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
When Bennett said “will pay $2.25 million dollars”, he was really thinking that the Oklahoma Legislature should provide incentives in the amount of $2.25 million, creating more corporate welfare for Bennett and his buddies.
When Bennett said “might be sent to Tulsa”, he was actually thinking of a more southeastern locale such as Broken Bow or Idabel.
Your analysis welcome…
Related: NBA.com story
We have an update to a story we posted yesterday from The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) which supposedly highlighted serious First Amendment concerns with H.B. 2196, the “Oklahoma Clean Campaigns Act of 2008. The group sent a letter to Governor Brad Henry yesterday expressing their Constitutional concerns with the pending legislation awaiting Henry’s signature.
KTOK Capitol reporter Peter Ruddy provides us with a correction:
As heard on KTOK radio, this group has it all wrong.
They were looking at Senate amendments to the bill, not the enrolled version that is on the governor’s desk.
The House rejected those Senate amendments and sent the bill to a conference committee. In that committee, the bill was changed so that the only thing it deals with is contributions to lawmakers or canidates for the legislature by lobbyists during the session and five days afterwards.
I talked with the spokesman for the Center for Competitive Politics and he was not aware the bill had been changed.
You can see for yourself by going to http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.u…tatus/ main.html and reading the nerolled version of the bill which is on the governor’s desk.
Or you can take the word of someone in Washington who puts out a press release.
Your choice.
Peter J. Rudy
KTOK Radio
State Capitol reporter
Oklahoma Bloggers Beware!
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) highlighted serious First Amendment concerns in H.B. 2196, the “Oklahoma Clean Campaigns Act of 2008,” in a letter the educational group sent today to Governor Brad Henry. The bill would make it a crime for any person to intentionally participate in the dissemination of false political advertising. The engrossed bill currently awaits the governor’s signature or veto.
CCP is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to protect the First Amendment political rights of speech, assembly and petition. If enacted, the bill “would place a chill upon political speakers of all varieties and undermine the robust nature of political debate in Oklahoma,” writes CCP president Sean Parnell in the letter to the governor. While truth in political speech is important, the specific provisions of the bill, “puts the government in the position of determining what constitutes ‘truth’ in an arena where what is ‘truth’ is itself often the focus of fierce debate,” Parnell counsels.
The bill relies on a vague standard that “allows the State to determine the ‘truth’ of any communication that relates to the ‘character, voting record or acts of the candidate,’” Parnell continues. “Statements about the ‘character’ of a candidate are more opinion than fact; they are characterizations. A governmental system that determines the ‘truth’ of a characterization, under penalty of law, is a standard so vague and overbroad that to enforce it would chill speech of every variety.”
Parnell notes that in an opinion overturning a similarly crafted Washington state law last year the Washington State Supreme Court wrote, “the notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.”
“As the Supreme Court of Washington aptly put it, a provision like the Oklahoma proposal ‘naively assumes that the government is capable of correctly and consistently negotiating the thin line between fact and opinion in political speech,’” Parnell concludes.
Insiders are scratching their heads today wondering why a bill that would direct the water resources board to put Oklahoma’s water interests before Texas’ interests is stalled in the state senate.
House Bill 2238, by Rep. Colby Schwartz and Sen. Mike Johnson, calls for the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to consider water permit applications from Oklahomans before applications from other states like Texas.
The bill states in part that “In the granting of water rights for transportation of stream water for use outside the State, pending applications to use such water within the State shall first be considered in order to assure that applicants within the State shall have all of the water required to adequately supply their beneficial uses.”
Our sources tell us that Senate Democrats would find it difficult to face the voters this fall if they were to vote against such a measure, so they are working to keep the bill from coming to the floor altogether, a sort of reverse “wooly booger.” Even more curious, reports are that lobbyists retained by Texas interests are not involved in the bill slowdown, since that would undermine their assertion that Texas only wants the water Oklahoma does not use.
One person knowledgeable about the intrigue points the finger of blame squarely at the Senate Democrats. “While it would seem that most Oklahomans would prefer to see Oklahoma’s natural resources utilized first by Oklahomans, that’s not the case with the Senate Democrats. There’s a line they’re feeding people that it might hurt the state’s defense of the lawsuit filed by Tarrant Regional Water District against Oklahoma’s moratorium on-out-of state water transfers. That’s non-sense. If Texans end up getting Oklahoma’s water and Oklahomans start rationing water, you’ll know who to blame,” he says.
The House is scheduled to consider the bill on Thursday. Once through the House the bill will be in the Senate’s hands for a vote before they adjourn on Friday. Our sources tell OKPNS that Democrats are counting on the bill getting lost in the last minute crush of business, allowing them to escape making a vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Rabon, D-Hugo, who our sources say is one of the Senators fighting to keep HB 2238 from reaching the Senate floor, issued a press release today blasting the House for passage of a resolution encouraging Attorney General Drew Edmondson to defend the state in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s moratorium on out-of-state sales of Oklahoma water.
Why would Rabon oppose a move that might help Oklahoma to win the lawsuit? No one seems to know, but it’s one of the more curious stances of the session: an Oklahoma lawmaker helping Texas win a federal lawsuit.
OKPNS will keep an eye on this developing story.