Why is it legal to discriminate against us?

Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

justMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

30 Mar 2010, 3:58 pm

Education is the only cure.

People who have known me, having things I do/say/avoid/excel at/suck at explained in context with my being mildly autistic, they've all commented about how little they understood about any of it.

My woman and I have been exploring each others mental states in numerous ways since I learned about this, teaching each other as much as we are learning about ourselves.


The assumption seems to be that we could just "snap out of it" if we wanted to try.



CerebralDreamer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

30 Mar 2010, 4:32 pm

veiledexpressions wrote:
It is perfectly legal for insurance companies to deny anything dealing with autism, as if a neurological difference were a choice. If I had depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, ocd, or anxiety, my insurance would cover my treatment.

Even if I made poor choices like overeating, and had weight related issues, they'd cover me... or if I smoked.

Yet, because I'm autistic, my treatments and therapies will not be covered. There is no "autism coverage" under my insurance.

I'm just wondering why and ranting. I was just denied coverage for some much needed therapy. Soon, I will need therapy for depression instead... At least they may cover that.

If the weight related issues were present before you bought the insurance, then it's a pre-existing condition. As long as they know about if before you buy insurance, they don't have to cover it.

It's the same with everything else, and it's not just applied to autism. It's applied to cancers, heart problems, and virtually every physiological/neurological problem out there. That's actually part of what Barrack Obama has been howling about. Insurance companies won't cover something if you had it before getting on their policy.

(Exceptions being really cheap stuff like asthma and allergies. If it isn't going to hurt their bottom line, they'll cover it in exchange for increased insurance costs.)



DemonAbyss10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,492
Location: The Poconos, Pennsylvania

30 Mar 2010, 4:52 pm

and society needs to be torn apart and made to suffer greatly. /sarcasm


_________________
Myers Brigg - ISTP
Socionics - ISTx
Enneagram - 6w5

Yes, I do have a DeviantArt, it is at.... http://demonabyss10.deviantart.com/


DenvrDave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 790
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

30 Mar 2010, 5:50 pm

justMax wrote:
Education is the only cure.


Ding, ding, ding, ding...we have a winner :D I couldn't agree more.



ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

30 Mar 2010, 6:02 pm

edit:MAJOR EDIT

It is common sense to be fair to people, and inhumane not to be.
Does everyone need laws for how to act like a human being?
That wouldn't work, without banning either NT or Autism.



Last edited by ValMikeSmith on 30 Mar 2010, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

30 Mar 2010, 7:35 pm

MichelleRM78 wrote:
What coverage do you need that isn't covered? Does your insurance offer mental health benefits in general? Any decent therapist can code a visit to something that will be covered (even marriage counseling is covered because of the way a therapist codes it).


:mrgreen: See? You can't possibly need anything you don't already have. Just learn to lie and play the system like normal folks do.

"Why, no, I don't have Autism, heh-heh...I have...uhm...Athelete's Foot...er...of the brain...I fell in the gym shower and my head stuck to the drain...yeah - that's the ticket! I don't have an ASD - I have A.F.B.."

Problem solved.

Besides, once those Autism Speaks people find a cure and a prenatal test, there won't be any more autistic people to worry about.

Perhaps the insurance companies will cover all the resultant abortions. That's not a pre-existing condition. :roll:

The reason your insurance doesn't cover it is that, as everyone in the US knows, Autism is a disease that only affects retarded children, and the school system takes care of them. Autistic children outgrow their symptoms by the time they turn 18, so there is no such thing as an Autistic adult, therefore, no need to provide them with coverage for anything. And if there were, it should be paid for by the vaccine manufacturers who caused this epidemic to begin with. At least that's what Jenny McCarthy says, and she's the self-proclaimed 'voice' of Autism. Still. Even though her son didn't ever actually have Autism to begin with.



natty
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 318

31 Mar 2010, 3:37 am

great thread. i definatly agree with the pre existing condition clause. however thats got me wondering , what about children who are born seriously ill and grow up with major disability . are there health care needs not covered by health insurance ? that seems a rediculous situation . i can only assume i have completly misunderstood what defines a pre existing condition ( i thought it was a condition that was present before u took out insurance) .



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

31 Mar 2010, 4:22 am

natty wrote:
great thread. i definatly agree with the pre existing condition clause. however thats got me wondering , what about children who are born seriously ill and grow up with major disability . are there health care needs not covered by health insurance ? that seems a rediculous situation . i can only assume i have completly misunderstood what defines a pre existing condition ( i thought it was a condition that was present before u took out insurance) .


Medicare covers disabled children, so I'd expect that's what most of them are on.

And, as far I know, if you had, say, leukemia at age 12, you're pretty much screwed for life when it comes to health insurance. (which is galling in that some conditions -- like cancer -- require medical follow up to look for recurrence)

I heard on the radio that the new health care bill had a provision to cover all children, but it turns out there was a loophole where children with pre-existing conditions don't have to be covered. Score one more point for the health insurance industry in crippling that bill.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

31 Mar 2010, 6:36 am

Shebakoby wrote:
because of that wonder of legalese known as a "pre-existing condition".


+1

I've been to law school...chose not to practice.

Odds are insurance sees AS/Autism as "pre-existing" and as such they should not have to pay for related treatments for related conditions. This is why people with such conditions (including others like diabetes) need to find jobs with employer-provided insurance which is prohibited from discriminating in coverage as part of the deal in providing "group coverage."

Insurance is designed to protect you from the hardship of UNFORESEEN medical needs. It's not designed to provide you with care for conditions you currently have.

This is why I've advocated for some time that we need to abolish the "health insurance" paradigm and more to "health care." Even for people in good health, insurance is a lot of money for something that won't pay a dime until you're out several thousands on top of the cost of the policy.



a-R
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 6
Location: england

31 Mar 2010, 8:12 am

greetings

it is not legal to discriminate - the disability discrimination act says so


_________________
if we believe in our heart and say with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord ( meaning God apointed savouir ) then we will be saved ( from sin and hell )


starygrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 795

31 Mar 2010, 8:42 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Shebakoby wrote:
because of that wonder of legalese known as a "pre-existing condition".


+1

I've been to law school...chose not to practice.

Odds are insurance sees AS/Autism as "pre-existing" and as such they should not have to pay for related treatments for related conditions. This is why people with such conditions (including others like diabetes) need to find jobs with employer-provided insurance which is prohibited from discriminating in coverage as part of the deal in providing "group coverage."

Insurance is designed to protect you from the hardship of UNFORESEEN medical needs. It's not designed to provide you with care for conditions you currently have.

This is why I've advocated for some time that we need to abolish the "health insurance" paradigm and more to "health care." Even for people in good health, insurance is a lot of money for something that won't pay a dime until you're out several thousands on top of the cost of the policy.


This is true. However the pre-existing condition thing on individual coverage changes in 2014. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate because of the Health Care Reform bill that just passed, but that section does not come into effect until four years from now, unless you are under 18, which that section comes into effect immediately.

I am under a group plan, I get my therapy covered, and I am listed as PDD-NOS. Its not like I need much outside of therapy these days.


Rock another non-practicing lawyer!



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

31 Mar 2010, 11:30 am

Because most NTs couldn't care less about autistic people.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 Mar 2010, 11:48 am

a-R wrote:
greetings

it is not legal to discriminate - the disability discrimination act says so


Only in so far as the Act proscribes discrimination. I think you will find a careful reading of the legislation allows for this type of exclusion.

In Canada, any medically necessary services are covered--that would include psychiatric treatment for anxiety, depression, or medical presentations related to Asperger's, but would not cover the services of a psychologist, counsellor or associated services. These are often covered, to greater or lesser extent, by private, supplementary plans. There are a wide variety of vehicles for supplementary coverage in Canada--employer plans are the most common, but many organizations also offer group plans to members (my car co-op, for example).


_________________
--James


Fo-Rum
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 435

31 Mar 2010, 4:24 pm

veiledexpressions wrote:
It is perfectly legal for insurance companies to deny anything dealing with autism, as if a neurological difference were a choice. If I had depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, ocd, or anxiety, my insurance would cover my treatment.

Even if I made poor choices like overeating, and had weight related issues, they'd cover me... or if I smoked.

Yet, because I'm autistic, my treatments and therapies will not be covered. There is no "autism coverage" under my insurance.

I'm just wondering why and ranting. I was just denied coverage for some much needed therapy. Soon, I will need therapy for depression instead... At least they may cover that.


I believe if a business wishes to discriminate, they should be allowed to. It isn't fair for -anyone- in any scenario except for the one where a party is willfully not discriminating.

Let businesses suffer the repercussions of their actions, and let a niche be open in a market because of those actions.

Life simply is not fair, and we shouldn't force others into a "fairness".


_________________
Permanently inane.


Bob550
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 47
Location: Wichita, Kansas

31 Mar 2010, 4:54 pm

I'm Bipolar and Adhd. Both of these things are covered and covered very well. Anything else I might have is totally disregarded. I don't think autism is covered, even though it is considered a disability. People pay more attention to my Bipolar Disorder than if I tell them I think I'm autistic. If I tell them about my Bipolar they say "not you". Bipolar Disorder is a lifelong condition just like autism. Its just easier getting a diagnosis for Bipolar and Adhd so the insurance Companies just about have to cover it.



Katie_WPG
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 492
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

01 Apr 2010, 7:38 pm

A lot of it is an issue of cost, and also of temporary vs permanent.

Minor mental illnesses are considered to be temporary, and very much treatable. Other than the cost of medication and maybe a therapist, it doesn't cost very much.

The problem with ASDs is because so little is known about what works and what doesn't, you have all of these quack therapies that all have the exact same amount of scientific proof (little to none). And they gouge. Oh, do they ever gouge. Some individual therapies cost up to $30,000/year. And many parents have their children in up to five or six different types of therapies at once. Since the hard data isn't out yet, insurance companies can't rule out one therapy over another as the long-term cost hasn't been determined by their actuarial staff yet (as they also need to calculate estimated years in therapy as well as cost per year).

So, the only feasible choice is to deny coverage to all "autism" related therapies until more can be determined about the premiums to charge the customer. High or low functioning, doesn't matter to them. If they decide to cover one group of people, then the other group will make noise until the insurance company caves.