Caregiver 5 paitent law

Where in the constitution does it give politicians the right to limit a legal business?

They say the 5 patient limit is because a "caregiver" needs to be doing more than just supply pot and if you are doing these things they feel that is a reasonable number.
Really? What if I want to hire someone else to do the "chores" so I can concentrate strictly on growing/delivering quality meds.? Or what if, like myself, you have mainly chronic pain patients that don't need anything other than meds? Too bad?

Can you imagine if they applied this law across the board? Say to elderly caregiver services. One business license could only carry 5 patients. With no co ops. LOL

Not much different than what a health insurance company will "allow" patients for meds that are considered "under coverage" is it?
Hmmm.... go figure!:angry3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaThump

Not much different than what a health insurance company will "allow" patients for meds that are considered "under coverage" is it?
Hmmm.... go figure!:angry3:

---

Are you saying that you are mad that health insurance companies won't cover medical pot?

Do you realize that A20 specifically states that insurance companies don't have to cover this or any related claims?

I'm not sure what you are saying though, care to clarify? I only ask because I have a fairly intimate knowledge of healthcare.

what?

My remark was about control of quantities (limiting). Not insurance coverage of pot.

I was just stating that the "limiting" factor stated regarding number of plants is similar to how insurance companies put limits on "how much" and "what types" of meds they will allow patients to have that are considered covered under their policy. (Like as if the insurance companies know more about what you need and don't need as opposed to the Doctor.)

I was not trying to confuse the issue here. Just making an observation that somebody somewhere higher up has the right to put a cap on everything the public does whether we agree with it or not. We live in a "FREE" country, but just how free is it really?

Anyone else out there feel the pain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaThump

My remark was about control of quantities (limiting). Not insurance coverage of pot.

I was just stating that the "limiting" factor stated regarding number of plants is similar to how insurance companies put limits on "how much" and "what types" of meds they will allow patients to have that are considered covered under their policy. (Like as if the insurance companies know more about what you need and don't need as opposed to the Doctor.)

I was not trying to confuse the issue here. Just making an observation that somebody somewhere higher up has the right to put a cap on everything the public does whether we agree with it or not. We live in a "FREE" country, but just how free is it really?

Anyone else out there feel the pain?

---

I'm going to ignore everything about your post except the health insurance part, because you are so badly misinformed. No offense.

I am in the health insurance industry, but I don't work for any one insurance carrier. I'm basically an agent who works as an advocate for my clients.

First, health insurance companies have to take in more than they pay out, to cover admin costs, profits, etc. Can we please agree to ignore the 'insurance companies are evil because of x profits last year' argument?

Second, regarding 'limits'. I don't think you understand how insurance policies work. Everything is spelled out in the certificate of coverage when you purchase the plan, so there shouldn't be any question about 'limits' or what types of medications your policy covers. Medications are expensive, and different policies cover different things. I don't take any meds, so I can pay less for a policy that has no prescription coverage, because I don't need to pay for a benefit that I don't use.

Third, if you are the one buying health insurance, it's on your shoulders to make sure you know what you are buying. Colorado law states that you have a ten day free look period. That means that once you receive you actual insurance policy, you have ten days to review it, maybe look through the limitations and exclusions parts. If you don't like it, you can return it and get a refund.

Fourth, there are different plans that cover different things. Some plans have no prescription coverage, some cover generic only, and some are full benefit plans that cover all Rx, including high cost injectibles. It's up to you as the consumer to know what kind of insurance you are purchasing.

It's obvious that you are mis-informed on this subject. If you are making a comment that your coverage at a job or something sucks, okay since you might not have a say in the matter. My point still stands that you should know what you are buying and be aware of the 'limits', and plan accordingly.

edit: my post went the wrong way, but I don't really think your post says anything, because it's a foolish position to post that some exec has control over your healthcare. That's retarded. Do you mind clarifying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaThump

Not much different than what a health insurance company will "allow" patients for meds that are considered "under coverage" is it?
Hmmm.... go figure!:angry3:

---

It's actually quite different.

This is the GOVERNMENT telling caregivers that they can only have 5 customers/patients and also limiting the amount they can give to these customers/patients.

From a patients perspective, lets say you smoke a QP a month, the GOVERNMENT is telling you that you cant buy all your meds at once to save on costs. Also, say you get stuck with a crappy caregiver and your friend has a good one, but his 5 spots are filled. The GOVERNMENT is telling you that you can't legally go buy the good meds from him. You're stuck with your guy, rolling the dice with a new guy or a dispensary. We all know about the kind of meds coming out of most dispensaries.

At least when you purchase insurance you have a choice. You can't expect insurance companies to take $50 a week from you and pay out $200. Once again this leads back to who? Yep, the government. If they weren't in bed with big pharma prescription costs would be less and more would be covered.

this thread really drifted off the grid. must be some fire you all are enjoying!:jointsmile:

For all those who have great insurance or a choice in the matter of what type of policy they want... I applaud you. Congratulations. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those in that category. I, along with many of my co-workers, have been taking cut after cut just to keep our jobs... yes that even includes our health coverage, but that's a different story and at this point, I don't care to expound on the subject any further.

I just made a sarcastic quirk along the lines that the government was taking lessons from insurance companies concerning "limits". I was having, "a moment" at the time out of my frustration from it all. So... if that is "retarded", then webster's definition of "retarded" needs editing.

Thanks for elaborating though... it was entertaining.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GanjaThump

For all those who have great insurance or a choice in the matter of what type of policy they want... I applaud you. Congratulations. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those in that category. I, along with many of my co-workers, have been taking cut after cut just to keep our jobs... yes that even includes our health coverage, but that's a different story and at this point, I don't care to expound on the subject any further.

I just made a sarcastic quirk along the lines that the government was taking lessons from insurance companies concerning "limits". I was having, "a moment" at the time out of my frustration from it all. So... if that is "retarded", then webster's definition of "retarded" needs editing.

Thanks for elaborating though... it was entertaining.;)

---

Again, no disrespect.

Obviously you aren't going to clarify, but you and everyone reading this thread should realize that EVERYONE in colorado has access to healthcare. However, if you don't want to PAY for it, then don't complain that it's not available, or that you're being screwed, etc.

For example, if you aren't eligible for coverage under a group insurance plan, you can seek medicare if you're old, medicaid if you're poor.

Also, Colorado has a safety net program called Cover Colorado, (www.covercolorado.org) which is guarantee issue meaning they accept everyone. This is paid for by people who have insurance already in the form of a premium tax. A new federally funded program called getting us covered took effect recently, which also covers all comers.

I just took issue because it seems like you don't have choices in your healthcare. You do, if you are willing to pay for it. If you are unhappy with the cost, then that's a different argument.