HEAT ADVISORY Click county for more information: Creek, Nowata, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington        

WHEN it comes to insurance coverage mandates, the irresistible force generally manages to dislodge the immovable object. It just takes time.

Whether an autism coverage mandate becomes law this year remains up in the air. The pressure on House Speaker Chris Benge has been intense. Pro-mandate forces have even launched a professional ad campaign.

This is a classic case of a subjective force butting heads with a rational object. We tend to favor the objective and rational in this debate, but we've passed this way before — most particularly during the mental health parity debate during the Keating administration. Then, the pro-mandate side wore down the resistance. That will likely happen again with the autism mandate. It's just a matter of time.

Mandates increase the cost of health insurance premiums and every such increase makes policies less affordable, which in turn drives up the uninsured numbers. Rational, subjective thought should enter this equation at every turn but too often doesn't.

How much the autism coverage mandate will cost is disputed, but there's no dispute that it will increase premiums. This is all the more reason to be cautious.

State Rep. Ron Peterson, R-Broken Arrow, is one of the immovable objects in this dispute. Peterson believes every coverage mandate should be vetted for its potential effect on premiums. He's right. But for the sin of rationalism (and that of Benge as well), he is demonized. Pro-mandate state Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, is on the verge of becoming a demagogue on this issue.

When it comes to global warming, we're told that the science is settled, the debate should end and that only the irrational can claim otherwise. When it comes to insurance coverage mandates, we're told that objectivism and rationalism should be discarded in favor of subjectivism and emotion.