Schaaf on the "Burden" of Autistic Children, and Why Covering Children With Leukemia Isn't a Priority
In last week's House debate on autism insurance legislation, Rep. Rob Schaaf (R-St. Joseph) proposed an amendment that would expand Medicaid to cover all newly-born children with autism. His amendment was ultimately defeated by a 65-87 vote, presumably because of concerns about the cost of the bill.
During the floor debate, Schaaf was asked to explain why he wasn't trying to cover more children with Medicaid. Schaaf's response was pretty...incredible.
QUESTION: You're saying we have the huge payoff under autism, by paying covering these children who are autistic. And the state's going to get a large payoff over time because we're going to drive those expenses down, and ultimately there will be a payback to the state. What's the difference on that -- or would you agree -- that we'd have just as much benefit to the state if we covered children with leukemia and children with heart problems, because those children with autism can currently also go to the high risk pool?
SCHAAF: No, but they can't get ABA [applied behavior analysis] in the high risk pool. They can't. It's not available. But the kids with leukemia and heart problems, instead of being a burden on the state for 65 years, they'll just die of leukemia and heart problems.
And this isn't about them, gentlemen, this, I want them to receive the treatment...
QUESTION: So are you saying that the benefit to the state is the fact that these poor children with cancer and leukemia are going to die?
SCHAAF: If they don't get the treatment that they need. [awkward silence] Kids with autism just live on, and they're a burden to the state their whole life.
QUESTION: Children with autism are what?
SCHAAF: Children with autism live shorter than average lives....
QUESTION: But what did you say? I missed what you said.
SCHAAF: ...they remain a burden to the state during their whole time. I mean, that's just a fact.
Listen:
Schaaf then goes on to say that he's interested in "milking" federal dollars to pay for his proposal, which is a fascinating admission for a leading member of the House Caucus that complains so often about spending federal money, and wouldn't pass legislation last year to draw down federal dollars to insure 35,000 working parents.
image credit: flickr.com/photos/robschaaf
