I was surprised at the number of autism-related posts we've done over the years (here and here, for example). They all seem to have one thing in common, though: they are primarily about autism in children.
But children (eventually) grow up, and of course face additional - albeit different - challenges:
"It’s getting easier for parents of young children with autism to get insurers to cover a pricey treatment called applied behavioral analysis. Once kids turn 21, however, it’s a different ballgame entirely."
Seems that, once you hit that magical age of 21 [ed: Wait, what? According to the ObamaTax you're still a toddler at age 26], those mandates mostly fall off, leaving young adults without coverage. It should be noted that such coverage isn't "free:" its cost (as with every mandated benefit) is built into our ever-increasing premiums.
But it seems to me that, if we're going to pay for life-style choices (*cough* birth control convenience items *cough*), then why aren't we considering conditions which are not under one's direct control? I'm not proposing another mandate, of course, but certainly there ought to be some room for discussion.
But children (eventually) grow up, and of course face additional - albeit different - challenges:
"It’s getting easier for parents of young children with autism to get insurers to cover a pricey treatment called applied behavioral analysis. Once kids turn 21, however, it’s a different ballgame entirely."
Seems that, once you hit that magical age of 21 [ed: Wait, what? According to the ObamaTax you're still a toddler at age 26], those mandates mostly fall off, leaving young adults without coverage. It should be noted that such coverage isn't "free:" its cost (as with every mandated benefit) is built into our ever-increasing premiums.
But it seems to me that, if we're going to pay for life-style choices (*cough*
Posts
