Oh, if only things were as simple as politicians sometimes portray them.
Take, for example, the recent state Assembly debate over a proposal to require insurance companies to cover the treatment of children with autism.
Late-night talks about the bill broke down last week when Democrats rejected a Republican rewrite. Instead of requiring insurance companies to provide coverage, Republicans would have put $6 million into a program to take care of kids and families on a waiting list for state aid for care.
Democrats portrayed Republicans as siding with insurance companies and "turning their backs" on autistic kids - while also asking taxpayers to foot the bill.
"Waiting for the cover of darkness to do the bidding of the insurance companies leaves families with nowhere to turn," Assembly Minority Leader Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, said in a news release that specifically targeted 80th District Assemblyman Brett Davis, R-Oregon.
Davis, in turn, called Kreuser's attacks "misguided and very, very partisan."
Of course, if the issue were as black and white as Kreuser paints it, the answer would be obvious. No one with a soul would choose the interests of insurance companies over children with autism.
Neither have Assembly Republicans.
Requiring insurance companies to cover autism treatments is a simple and politically popular answer, for sure. But the issue is much more complex.
Like it or not, coverage mandates tend to have the unwanted effect of raising health care premium costs for everyone. Democrats criticize Assembly Republicans for seeking to pass the costs of care onto taxpayers through the state aid program. But forcing insurance companies to cover the procedures could have a similar effect.
There also is a small albeit growing number of treatments universally accepted as effective on autistic children. A mandate would include a limited number of treatments, as insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover treatments that experts can't agree are effective. Even autism issue advocates admit insurance mandates may force families into choosing treatments that may not be as effective on their child's particular form of autism.
Does that mean that insurance companies should be let off the hook, and allowed to leave families to fend for themselves in the costly treatment of autism? Absolutely not.
It does mean that Republicans are not evil when they suggest spending state money to help families cope with costs. In the short term, it may be a more effective solution than an insurance mandate.
Democrats, and Republicans, would better serve their public and the people who need their help the most if they would recognize and report that their debates often are more about shades of gray than they are about black and white. It also may lead to greater compromise.
Take, for example, the recent state Assembly debate over a proposal to require insurance companies to cover the treatment of children with autism.
Late-night talks about the bill broke down last week when Democrats rejected a Republican rewrite. Instead of requiring insurance companies to provide coverage, Republicans would have put $6 million into a program to take care of kids and families on a waiting list for state aid for care.
Democrats portrayed Republicans as siding with insurance companies and "turning their backs" on autistic kids - while also asking taxpayers to foot the bill.
"Waiting for the cover of darkness to do the bidding of the insurance companies leaves families with nowhere to turn," Assembly Minority Leader Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, said in a news release that specifically targeted 80th District Assemblyman Brett Davis, R-Oregon.
Davis, in turn, called Kreuser's attacks "misguided and very, very partisan."
Of course, if the issue were as black and white as Kreuser paints it, the answer would be obvious. No one with a soul would choose the interests of insurance companies over children with autism.
Neither have Assembly Republicans.
Requiring insurance companies to cover autism treatments is a simple and politically popular answer, for sure. But the issue is much more complex.
Like it or not, coverage mandates tend to have the unwanted effect of raising health care premium costs for everyone. Democrats criticize Assembly Republicans for seeking to pass the costs of care onto taxpayers through the state aid program. But forcing insurance companies to cover the procedures could have a similar effect.
There also is a small albeit growing number of treatments universally accepted as effective on autistic children. A mandate would include a limited number of treatments, as insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover treatments that experts can't agree are effective. Even autism issue advocates admit insurance mandates may force families into choosing treatments that may not be as effective on their child's particular form of autism.
Does that mean that insurance companies should be let off the hook, and allowed to leave families to fend for themselves in the costly treatment of autism? Absolutely not.
It does mean that Republicans are not evil when they suggest spending state money to help families cope with costs. In the short term, it may be a more effective solution than an insurance mandate.
Democrats, and Republicans, would better serve their public and the people who need their help the most if they would recognize and report that their debates often are more about shades of gray than they are about black and white. It also may lead to greater compromise.
