Vagina Gate- Michigan House of Representatives

[AGDLynn]

There was a nice article in the Atlanta paper today about Michigan now covering more autism costs for children.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by AGDLynn

There was a nice article in the Atlanta paper today about Michigan now covering more autism costs for children.

Maybe. http://michiganradio.org/post/michig...ge-and-funding

Originally Posted by article

The law will go into effect on October 1, but some questions have been raised about part of the funding for the mandated coverage.On the same day the Legislature approved the autism coverage bill, a state Senate committee stripped out funding in the state's proposed Medicaid budget for treating kids six and under with autism.

In his budget, Gov. Snyder put aside $34 million for this kind of coverage. That's now been brought down to $100 by the subcommittee.

State insurance regulations, like this one, do not apply to "self-funded employer insurance plans."

Those plans are overseen by the federal government.

Most large employers, such as GM, Home Depot, or DTE Energy, provide benefits through a "self-funded health care plan."

Those employers can choose to cover autism as part of their benefits on their own, but they're not compelled to do so by this new legislation.

Reality is, if the Medicaid bill overrides the autism bill, then the only insurance this applies to at all is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan because, as a non-profit, they are the only ones regulated by the state, besides Medicaid. As the article above points out, self insured companies don't have to do it. Matter of fact, all of those self insureds use BCBSM to process their claims and the members cards say BCBSM, but they are actually self funded and just pay BCBSM to process their claims for them.

[SWTXBelle]

I am personally tired of hearing that having or not having a vagina has any relevance to the validity of an argument. The idea should be debated on its merits or lack thereof - not on who is presenting it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

[AGDee]

But having an invalid argument is not a reason to ban someone from speaking on the House floor.

Filibusters are a good example of that. They sometimes talk about all kinds of things not related to the bill at all.

[SWTXBelle]

I wasn't even thinking about the floor debate - I was thinking of all those who want to focus on whether or not a particular participant has a vagina or not. Not relevant. Penis, vagina, or none of the above - show me the logic!

If having an invalid argument prevented debate there would be far less debate in any legislature you care to name.


I've always joked that if you want to clear a room of men simply mention the word "placenta" - but apparently I had the wrong word. The secret word is: vagina!

[agzg]

It's not about whether those debating happen to own a vagina or not, it's more that shutting women out of the discussion (we saw this on Capital Hill earlier this year with the Sandra Fluke business) when the legislation directly affects them really shows how they feel about open and honest debate.

Along with patronizing them because you "wouldn't say that in mixed company."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

It's not about whether those debating happen to own a vagina or not....

Jen is among those who think that it is about that.

Originally Posted by agzg

...shutting women out of the discussion...Along with patronizing them because you "wouldn't say that in mixed company."

And as ridiculous as that is there are women who also feel that way. Regardless of where that ridiculousness originated (patriarchy, sexism, etc.), people need to stop pointing the finger at men decision makers as though there is not a larger issue that resulted in this. Some of these men decision makers think there is a consensus regarding such issues and therefore they are fighting for a greater cause that the majority of women and men agree with.