Fight for Nick's Law Continues

The Oklahoma Watchdog has an article with some comments from the Republican candidates currently engaged in a runoff for the nomination for state Insurance Commissioner.

For those who don't know, Nick's Law is proposed legislation to mandate that insurance companies cover the medical expenses of autistic children. As you have probably figured out, I firmly oppose any government mandate on what insurance companies cover.

Both John Doak and John Crawford seem to be leaning toward supporting Nick's Law, although Doak does say that he wants to discuss with insurers about how they offer coverage in non-mandate Minnesota. (By the way, it's a bit ironic that Wayne Rohde moved his family to Minnesota to get needed care for their autistic child, rather one of the 21 states where the mandate to provide coverage has been passed into law. That care is supposedly not available in Oklahoma due to lack of a mandate against insurers.)

Rohde is quoted in the article:

"A legislative mandate is not socialism," Rohde said. "It’s telling the insurance company that ‘you must cover it.’" 

He's right. Socialism is a political and economic theory advocating common or public ownership. Legislative mandates are products of derigism. However, most people don't know what socialism really is, they just know it's bad. (By the way, derigism is bad, too.)

Ask yourself these question: Do you want the government to tell your business that you are required to serve someone that you may likely lose a lot of money on? What do such mandates mean for the insurance rates of everyone else?