If I were arguing against you, I’d aim first at a few fundamentals… let’s see:
1. I would first go right to the root, and attack your assertions about “curing” this neurological disorder. Along the way, I would plant a few doubts in the judge’s mind that Autism is a “mental” disorder that can be obviated by psychiatric counseling and some meds. I would continually drop hints – and bring in expert opinions complete with images of brain scans from patient studies – that Autism is mainly a physical deformity of brain function, and that real improvement, limited though it may be, is mostly gained through the application of drugs, that any impression the medical community has of counseling and/or behavior modification as the path to cure is more or less wishful thinking. (What a bastard I’d be!)
Along the lines of cystic crypt’s initial queries, I would declare that improving the lot of 87% of patients sounds great – but is not so great when the mitigation of their condition is relatively minor, as he suggested in supposing that it might raise IQ scores “from 65 to 68.”
So much for the “cure.”
2. Now I would flip my argument, and show that there really has been some “curing” of Autism – and that it has been accomplished mainly by the government funding for special education services, and by Medicaid, etc. Here come the statistics and expert testimony that public health services have indeed done the best, most cost-effective socially responsible job in treating and mitigating the effects of autism.
But wait – does it sound like I’m agreeing with you? Only if you blur the distinction between “public health services” and “insurance companies.”
My real thrust in this argument is to stick the public schools and daycare centers with the burden. I would raise a major, major stink challenging why should insurance companies be mandated to pay for the treatment of any Autistic patients, above and beyond any amount these private enterprises already are saddled with. I would show statistics and my treasured actuarial tables that illustrate a world where having my beloved insurance companies paying 50% of the treatment cost is already a huge burden that qualifies these companies as the veritable Mother Theresas of the corporate universe.
I would make a big statement, again supported by experts, that adding 35 %age points to this burden would actually counteract the good work being done, by eroding the insurance companies’ ability to pay for the drugs, to compensate truly qualified shrinks, etc. They would have to slash the quality of the treatment – thereby harming the welfare of the patients – in order to meet the unsupportable burden of taking on a greater quantity of patients (your argument already states this would happen) while being forced to pay a much greater share of the treatment for each one treated. Some of these corporate good citizens might even be forced out of business, further reducing available resources for Autistic patients.
This is the practical, cold-hard facts part of the argument. Now I swing into pragmatics: “Your honor, we want the greatest good for the greatest number. But in a case of such scope and need, only the federal government can accomplish that, and only by developing the already superior program that exists within the publically funded daycare and school system, through special ed programs, etc.” Of course, the big insurance combines, being the leaders of mankind that they are, would graciously step forward to serve on boards and tell the education bureaucrats how to spend the $12 billion in new federal funds.
I would close by beating the drum for this wonderful match made in heaven: public money, private direction on where and how to spend it. (My first argument, that success in treating Autism is really due to drug regimes, will be alluded to in closing, as I note that by far the best way to administer daily drug doses to kids is to get the school nurse to supervise it! What Johnny needs is not $125/hr. invididual psychiatric mumbo jumbo, but $20/hr. school nurses who can dispense pills to 300 kids! Ah, the public schools: the universal panacea.)
Well, there’s my cynical go-for-the-jugular negative. If you have further questions, I could refer you to my colleague, Dr. Mengele.
