Political Hotsheet
October 20, 2009 2:39 PM

Will Health Coverage Pay for Medical Marijuana?

(AP/John McCoy, L.A. Daily News)
Updated 5:45 p.m. ET

On Monday, news reports offered the latest piece of evidence that the country is moving toward greater acceptable of medical marijuana use: The federal government sent guidelines instructing prosecutors not to focus on prosecuting state-sanctioned medical marijuana users and suppliers.

Fourteen states now allow at least some medical marijuana usage; Monday's news, as Andrew Cohen notes, means that "tens of thousands of Americans now are free from federal persecution and prosecution for conduct that is completely legal in their own states." In addition, a new poll finds that 44 percent of Americans now favor outright marijuana legalization, marking a new high.

With that said, it seems reasonable to wonder whether medical marijuana is – or will ever be – covered through health insurance plans, like a typical prescription drug.

First, consider the present: Susan Pisano of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that represents nearly 1,300 companies, told Hotsheet the group does not "know of any coverage for medical marijuana among our member companies."

Medical Marijuana Arrest Guidelines Eased
L.A. Prosecutor Vows to Target Pot Shops
Andrew Cohen: New Pot Policy Is Not Yet a Turning Point

That comports with the opinion of Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project, who said patients at the moment have no choice but to pay "cold, hard cash" for medical marijuana.

The reason that medical marijuana is not covered, both Pisano and Mirken said, is that it is not approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

"The main issue here is the question of FDA approval that all drugs need to go through," said Pisano. Lack of FDA approval means no coverage either by private insurers or through any public plan to be drafted in Congress.

So what, then, are the prospects that medical marijuana will get FDA approval? In the short term, at least, they're pretty slim. The fact that marijuana remains a controlled substance presents one hurdle to approval; another, perhaps more significant one is that it isn't a synthesized drug – that is, its component parts are not crafted by drug companies.

As a result, it's hard to say exactly what's in marijuana – and thus hard for the FDA to assess it.

There is an FDA approved drug that contains THC, the primary psychoactive element of the cannabis plant. It's called Marinol, and it was approved way back in 1985. But Marinol lacks many of the not-yet-fully-understood components that come with traditional marijuana, and thus is far-more FDA friendly. (CBSNews.com explored the debate over Marinol in August in this story: "Does the Pot Pill Work?")

And those aren't the only issues complicating matters for medical marijuana: There is also the question of the size of doses. At the moment, marijuana comes in a range of potencies and quantities that would have to be standardized for the drug to meet FDA guidelines.

The FDA's Karen Riley told Hotsheet that the organization does not discuss whether specific drugs are being considered for approval. But since marijuana lacks clear components or standardized doses – and since it is not even clear who might submit it for consideration – it seems extremely unlikely that medical marijuana is going through the process.

For now, then, medical marijuana users shouldn't get their hopes up that they'll soon see the drug partially paid for by their insurance company. Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said there has been little agitation to get medical marijuana covered, though he predicted that advocates will eventually take up the cause.

"There hasn't been anything substantial yet," he said. "Right now we're still focused on the legal issues."

More CBSNews.com Coverage on Marijuana Legalization Efforts:
America's Love-Hate History with Pot
Inside Holland's "Half Baked" Pot Policy
Pot No Longer Focus of Anti-Drug Campaigns
CBSNews.com Special Report: Marijuana Nation
Tags:
marijuana ,
pot ,
Marijuana Nation
Topics:
Marijuana
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 54 Comments
by weedneedz October 22, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
If you're curious to see where the medical marijuana dispensaries and physicians are (aka pot shops and pot docs) just type your zip code in at www.weedneedz.com - there's probably 20 places close to where you're standing.
Reply to this comment
by wasrinrime October 22, 2009 12:14 PM EDT
Had a friend years ago diagnosed with incurable cancer. Her insurance paid for medical hooch and she recieved it in a large medicine bottle already rolled what courtesy. It did help her greatly with her symptoms from massive amounts of chemo. The problem I have with it is that it's use should be limited to only extreme cases and not to anyone with a minor ailment that has not already exhausted all other efforts. Remember just like cigaretts, smoking pot causes cancer. Mexico's drug cartel must be reeling over the possibility of legalizing pot for medical use and limiting the fines for those that grow and distribute it.
Reply to this comment
by earthling76 October 23, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
Cannabis does not cause cancer just like cigarettes. It is only associated with an increased likelihood of respiratory irritation (cough or bronchitis). Besides, you can use a vaporizor or obtain an edible cannabis products. No smoke, no problem.

http://www.legalize.com/nocancer.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=5310

We have been lied to for proprietary reasons. You must always question the motives behind the information presented. Would you trust Philip Morris to provide information about the true health consequences of their products? Oh wait, we've been down that road already.
by stuart-johns2 October 21, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
Herre we go. On Hardball right now. Two republicans are going to debate whetheer their party should be the party of no.

One, a normal republican and decent man (former Rep. Sen. Chaffee) says the party should say yes. He thinks saying no to everything is bad for the country and the Party.

Now the republican extremists fool disagrees. ( Rep. Sen. Ben Webb) He says that the party's focus on saying no is working. His reason. It'll help to destroy Obama. Nothing mentioned about the good of the country from this guy.

Ah.....the republican extremists. Such fools to their own demise.
Reply to this comment
by jxknowles October 21, 2009 4:07 PM EDT
Anyone who wants marijuana can already get it. It can be grown anywhere in the U.S., any time of the year. There is no effective way to enforce laws concerning the use and distribution.
Reply to this comment
by timdgrim October 21, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
Wall Street, Big Banks and Corporations hope we all get medical marijuana so we'll get so stoned we'll forget about their criminal activities and just worry about our supply of Ice Cream and Cheetos!
Reply to this comment
by earthling76 October 23, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
Nice stereotype. Thanks for displaying your ignorance.
by Conservative_1976 October 21, 2009 8:53 AM EDT
Marijuana in various forms, not necessarily smoked, has been used therapeutically for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than many other classes of drugs. In particular, marijuana appears to be far safer than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred fatal poisonings each year (_http//www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm_).

In 2008, the American College of Physicians stated: ?Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids. Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. The science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.? (_http//www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf_)

It's time to put the criminal drug dealers out of business. Let's implement a personal cultivation permit, maybe $100 per year for a dozen plants, and get the criminals off the streets and away from our kids.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns2 October 21, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
For a Conervative, I agree with you. Good post.
by cidaia October 22, 2009 7:46 AM EDT
I'm not so sure I'm still in favor of medical marijuana after I met someone who got a "prescription" for "depression" following some grief-inducing losses...I do not even think he suffers from "depression", since it's not pathological to feel grief when grief is appropriate. The dishonesty of this bugs me. If the real goal is recreational use, then it should be legal for everyone, and no prescription should be necessary; if it's "medical", then we should recognize that there need to be standards governing when its use is legitimate and where the line is where we're crossing into abuse.
by earthling76 October 23, 2009 4:58 PM EDT
@cidaia

Is it really any of your business how someone chooses to cope with life's hardships? One of my relatives was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and she tried to talk to her doctors about medical marijuana. They told her she is not there yet. This angers me intensely. She has been on prescription painkillers for four years. She has built up a tolerance to these pills but can't take more because of the risk of overdose. Not to mention the effects on her kidneys and liver from taking these pharmaceuticals for all those years. She is slowly dying. So I guess when she has only a few hours left she'll finally be there. Its people like you who are so concerned with everyone else's business, citing your OPINION on the abuse of this medicine, who keep my aunt from having some relief in her life. It should be legal. It should be taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. Its about personal responsibility. If you don't like it then don't do it. Mind your own business.
by cidaia October 24, 2009 2:35 AM EDT
Your loved one is in pain, so therefore we should all just ignore ethically questionable behavior, we should just tolerate fraud without questioning, we should all just vote the way we're told, we should all stop THINKING because you've got an emotion and it makes you WANT something.

Talk about letting emotion getting in the way of logic.

No wonder people feel so unashamed about behaving unethically, when people like you are ready to justify anything because OMG! YOU WANT! MUST GRATIFY!
by earthling76 October 24, 2009 7:10 PM EDT
What fraud? Apparently, in your example, the person you claim is questionable received a prescription from a doctor. That decision was made after a discussion between a patient and their doctor. It is not a circumstance available for your judgement. Nor should it be.
If your loved one was in pain maybe you would understand that I have no right to decide what he/she should have at their disposal to limit that pain. The reason I get emotional, as you put it, is because the opposition to legalization is illogical. You may be able to point out that people are abusing cannabis but to maintain prohibition for that reason is absurd. Under that point of view we should make alcohol illegal again along with anything else that really has no medicinal value. Is that the position you wish to hold? Is that what you call ethical behavior? Enslavement through incarceration.
Ending the prohibition of cannabis will not make consumers behave less ethical. In fact, if it were legal, responsible cannabis consumers would have no need to feel ashamed, or unashamed in their defiance of prohibition, since it would no longer be unethical.
As for myself, I admit my previous post was aggressive and you did not deserve that. You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't think you should throw out a whole harvest of apples because you have found a few rotten ones. Cannabis abuse happens, just as it does with alcohol, but prohibition is worse. I think a logical and thoughtful person would understand that fact trumps every other argument.
by cidaia October 25, 2009 9:21 AM EDT
If one have to use deceit to win the argument, then the argument is no good and even its advocates know it.

You're saying the reality is that "medical" marijuana for the relief of "emotional pain" is a valid "medicinal" use.

But that isn't the case that has been presented to the American public. We're told that it's about "pain relief". That it's real medicine.

Most people who are in favor of medical marijuana are either in favor of using it for its legitimate purpose - pain relief - or they are in favor of legalizing it all the way, for recreational use.

But of course what you want is to have your recreational marijuana masquerading as "medicine", because that way you can bilk taxpayers for the bill.
by cidaia October 25, 2009 9:22 AM EDT
Oh, and you're wrong.

I'm a voter. It IS up to me to judge.
by earthling76 October 25, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
I am not being deceitful in order to win an argument. Cannabis has medicinal value for all sorts of problems not just for pain. If cannabis were legal, recreational users would not get their cannabis via health insurance. So to accuse me or others of trying to bilk taxpayers is wrong. It is the prohibitionists that are milking the taxpayers through propaganda in order to maintain their ever expanding budgets. I am for the legalization, taxation, and regulation of cannabis. I believe that if we apply the laws that regulate alcohol and tobacco to cannabis that any negative outcome will be far less than our current system. If you are worried about who gets cannabis through health coverage then lets just come up with a list of conditions that qualify. Everyone else will have to pay out of pocket. Is that acceptable?
by cidaia October 25, 2009 11:34 PM EDT
If that's your argument, I see why you pretend that medicinal marijuana is for terminally ill people experiencing pain.

The argument that marijuana is just as "medicinal" for all the losers who need to self-medicate, sure doesn't have the same ring as real pain relief for real physical disorders.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that losing a loved one requires a prescription for 'medicinal' pot. I also remember the young man who cried abuse when he showed up for his school prom stoned and reeking of pot.

Drug abuse and fraud are both serious issues, and both issues ought to be resolved before we legalize "medicinal" marijuana.
by cidaia October 25, 2009 11:40 PM EDT
And btw I am not necessarily a prohibitionist - if this were being presented HONESTLY, for what it is - a move toward the real goal of legalizing recreational marijuana - I'd consider it on the merits of that argument.

But put in the context of this argument - that the justification involves medicinal use - there's a serious trust issue here, because when I raise these concerns, the response is that the concerns aren't going to be viewed as legitimate - because people have the right to smoke whatever they want.

But people don't have the right to smoke whatever they want. Currently, the law is that we restrict certain types of substance. If you want to change THAT law, it's a separate argument, and trying to slip in that argument the way politicians slip in "pork" has some unfortunate side effects - like, for instance, the way you are trivializing some very real issues regarding medicare fraud, drug abuse, the misuse of prescription-writing or prescription-receiving powers, and the erosion of trust between the public and the medical community (which needs to uphold high standards if it wants to continue to be held as trustworthy - say, when they need the public to trust them about, for instance, a new vaccine?).

You can't behave dishonestly and not lose trust. The two are linked. If you would pass a 'medicinal' marijuana bill, you need to make it JUST for medicinal uses, and not expand "medicinal" to include every one who stubs a toe or feels kinda "down".
by earthling76 October 26, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
You sound like you have already made up your mind long before this discussion. You don't directly address any questions I present. You call people losers if they don't live exactly to your moral standards. You assume that people who are for legalization are all getting high already. Thats fine. If I have the wrong impression, prove me wrong. What are the merits of legalization? Tell me. How is it that medical cannabis and recreational consumption are two different subjects, to be discussed separately, when the prescription fraud you mention might be committed by recreational users? You can't really deal with the possibility of prescription cannabis fraud without addressing the recreational user who commits the fraud. Since prohibition does not work and cannabis is less harmful than legally prescribed pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and tobacco, legalization is the rational solution. The patient who qualifies would receive a prescription and the recreational user who does not qualify will have to purchase their cannabis without the aid of health coverage. I don't trivialize fraud. That is your accusation. I presented to you a solution and I was hoping to get your thoughts on what could be done to eliminate the possibility of fraud. Or perhaps you would rather just argue for the sake of argument.
by cidaia October 28, 2009 7:29 PM EDT
And you sound like you have no response, no argument to offer, in response to my legitimate concerns.

I am all in favor of pain relief for the seriously ill. It's just that the more I read, the less it looks to me like this is what the legalization of pot is really about.
by earthling76 October 29, 2009 5:42 PM EDT
Okay, you have a nice day now.
by prajaowain October 21, 2009 1:01 AM EDT
The F.D.A has outlived it's usefulness. Time for something new.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 October 20, 2009 11:30 PM EDT
Will Health Coverage Pay for Medical Marijuana?

Well, if these people wanna self medicate, I should get reimbursed for my scotch.

(I swear the doc said take two shots and call me in the morning.)
Reply to this comment
by ianlou October 21, 2009 10:36 AM EDT
I say, If it is provided as a pill - Yes
Smokable Pot - No.
by earthling76 October 21, 2009 5:41 PM EDT
If you work that into the bill I am down for the vote. Who am I to judge.
by wdh3007 October 20, 2009 9:31 PM EDT
Forty four percent is not a majority and if something was meant to be legal it would have been long ago this is bad for a number of reasons. It gets those who don't need it to take advantage of the system to a point where they are hooked on it even more. It creates more problems for those in the law enforcement community and makes the government and eventually the insurance companies look like a drug cartel if they follow suit.
Reply to this comment
by sarcasticfrog October 20, 2009 10:10 PM EDT
How old are you, in your 70s? Have you actually looked at the Gallop poll which was published regarding this data? It is an increasing number; it is actually increasing at an exponential rate.

You must realize that since the verdict, that is, marijuana is actually a safer substance than alcohol, has therapeutic uses, and actually doesn't cause the damages to society as it once was told to cause... society shifts its view... as the older generation dies (those who group marijuana with heroin... and the 50% of people who never used marijuana and the 2% who used marijuana who didn't get high the first time using it...) the favor of marijuana legalization will continue to climb.

It is inevitable... that is the end of marijuana prohibition. It is just, when. We as a society favor SCIENCE over racism and premonitions, which ruled in 1937 and the 1970s.
by SkirtLifter October 20, 2009 9:22 PM EDT
Hypothesis: A stoned society is a controllable society!

Combine this with another hypothesis: Gov't handouts create dependence.

You do the math...Now I'll pack a fat B-load of the finest keef, from Hydroponic, manicured, locally grown BC hybrid.

Then i'll cash my welfare check, buy fillet mignon with my food stamps, buy some Widmer Hefeweizen with my section 8 savings, pack a bongload for that skinny meth-ho next door (I hope she's not dope sick 'cause I don't do chemicals), fire up the BBQ, and I'll BE LIVIN' LARGE FOOL!!!!!


I hope you get the point without being offended by my sarcastic diatribe. We are quickly drifting toward a passive, malleable, gov't dependent, sub-society that will be socially bankrupt and ... well ... bankrupt. We are forgetting to take care of ourselves and family. We are no longer holding ourselves accountable. We are in trouble.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod October 20, 2009 10:01 PM EDT
SkirtLifter,
"We are quickly drifting toward a passive, malleable, gov't dependent, sub-society that will be socially bankrupt and ... well ... bankrupt. We are forgetting to take care of ourselves and family. We are no longer holding ourselves accountable. We are in trouble"

wow, someone with open eyes, that is one of the best statements I have ever read on this CBS blog.
by SkirtLifter October 20, 2009 10:08 PM EDT
Thanx Chevy, I RARELY get a compliment.
by slownewsday_5 October 20, 2009 10:31 PM EDT
Go get a room, you two...
by g55rumpy October 21, 2009 8:12 AM EDT
Hear Hear
by stuart-johns2 October 21, 2009 4:47 PM EDT
That's funny.
by cidaia October 22, 2009 7:51 AM EDT
Hahaha I liked your comment. Here's my hypothesis: maturity is the point where you stop focusing on the desire to take and start thinking about the reasons to give back, to build, create, restore, or pass on...

By this standard, we are a nation that fears maturity. We demand our right to stay childlike forever. Supported by someone else. The only problem is...who?
by earthling76 October 23, 2009 6:35 PM EDT
The only way to prove your hypothesis (educated guess) is to legalize cannabis. Look at the benefits. If you are right then your political party can hit the panic button and will have plenty of support to regain control of the country. I say go for it. It has worked before. Create a crisis and scare everyone into action. Who cares if they find out later it was b.s.? What are we going to do about it?

We have been in trouble ever since the introduction of prohibition as a policy and the various attempts to legislate morality. It is probably the fact that it has been your adopted version of morality that has been dominant, up until now, that has caused you to now claim we are headed for trouble when faced with the possibility of change. Change you can't control and do not understand. Change brought about by thought, not emotion, and also decades of observations. Lets use facts, not assumptions, to create a rational drug policy for OUR country.
by pickaguitar1 October 20, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
Will Health Coverage Pay for Medical Marijuana?

That would be cool!
Reply to this comment
by lami987 October 20, 2009 9:10 PM EDT
All drugs should be made legal but regulated. Drugs, just like guns, are not the problem. People are. If used properly and with enough knowledge any drug can be beneficial. In fact, drugs are safer than guns even in the hands of crooks. Because a crook can hide and still is able to shoot a person 20 or more feet away. That crook would have to face the person before the crook can force the drug into that person unless the crook uses a gun and a syringe. It is true, drugs and guns are weapon of choice of terrorists and gangs aroung the world. But it is important that we do not favor one over the other.
Reply to this comment
by credibility2 October 20, 2009 7:36 PM EDT
Wonder how employers are going to deal with the rampant absenteeism by those high on so-called medical marijuana? How will law enforcement protect those driving the roads from becoming targets of these high medical druggies? You know there will be a lot of dealing and doing by those who convince their doctors to give them prescriptions now, don't you? Sort of like the over prescription of oxycontin and other pain medications. Lots of questions.
Reply to this comment
by pubsrtoast October 20, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
Oh no! Jeez, in case you missed it the streets of this country are awash in illegal drugs of all kinds. The police will be the first to tell you that the war on drugs has been an abject failure as availability has increased year over year along with potency while street costs have actually decreased.
by bmxride October 20, 2009 8:49 PM EDT
well in my perspective kids start smoking maryjuana when they are around 15 years old. They start out by smoking very little then they do it mor often. This leads to them going to school high. Teens that drive under the influence of weed they can drive fine but people who drive under the influence of alcohol are all over the road and yet that is legal when you are 21.
by us_1776 October 20, 2009 9:03 PM EDT
Now with drug lords making the Forbes list of BILLIONAIRES maybe people will realize that the WAR ON DRUGS has been a COMPLETE FAILURE.

First, WE, the United States of America, ARE COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE VIOLENCE, MURDERS, AND CRIMES THAT ARE OCCURRING BECAUSE OF DRUGS.
It is our arcane, prohibitionist policies toward drugs and our WAR ON DRUGS that have fueled and caused all of this. Now our policies are nearly going to topple governments. Additionally, all of the prison-overcrowding is due to putting harmless marijuana users in prison due to harsh mandatory drug sentencing laws. And this has led to extremely violent criminals being early-released onto our community streets. Criminals like child sex offenders, murderers, rapists, serial-killers. And we are responsible for this madness.

We must take a far different strategy toward the drug problem with the goal being to take all the money out of it so as to decimate the drug cartels, and second to empty our prisons of people who are not a threat to society. IE, marijuana users.

After a year and a half we got a whole $50M and some drugs in this latest WAR ON DRUGS bust. Do you all realize that this isn't even in the NOISE LEVEL of the drug problem? The drug cartels are making HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars on illegal drugs.

BY ANY MEASURE, THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A TOTAL FAILURE.

We need to stop dealing with the drug problem as only a SUPPLY side issue. We must also deal with the problem as a DEMAND side issue as well. And that means putting USERS of hard addictive drugs in jail. These are the drugs that fuel all the crime.

As far as marijuana, it's a relatively benign, non-addictive drug used by MILLIONS every day. We need to realize that the better approach to marijuana would be to make it legal, tax it and derive revenue from it.
I make a very clear distinction between a benign non-addictive drug like marijuana and the highly-addictive drugs like crack, and cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, etc. The hard drug users are the cause of most of the crime in our communities because their $1000/day habits require large amounts of money, which fuels the criminal gangs and crime. These people are a danger to society. USERS of hard addictive drugs need to go to prison. In contrast, marijuana is non-addictive and a relatively benign drug used casually by MILLIONS every day. USERS of marijuana need to pay tax on it just like we do with alcohol.

This is a sensible drug policy that would completely undermine the drug cartels, keep dangerous hard drug users out of society and bring peace to our streets

THINK ABOUT IT!
by AOCGUY October 21, 2009 5:29 AM EDT
cred - laws already exist to deal with people operating motot vehivles while impaired. It doesn't matter whether you have a prescription or not if you are impaired you can't drive. And I don't know about where you work but if I took a legally prescribed prescription that left me impaired at work I would be fired.
by cidaia October 28, 2009 7:39 PM EDT
credibility -- the answer to your question appears to be, "people already violate the law/abuse drugs/do bad things, so therefore we should stop caring about people violating the law/abusing drugs/doing bad things. In fact, we should legalize and encourage these things, and then there's no problem with them doing it."

Which is an interesting way to argue that something "isn't really bad". It's like an argumentum ad populum...on steroids.
by revraygreen October 20, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
I've been paying out of pocket for my medical marijuana for the last 1 years, I will gladly pay for it without ANY INSURANCE COMPANY if I can LEGALLY cultivate it myself without fear of my door being kicked in.


Iowa Board of Pharmacy Medical Marijuana Public Hearings promo-video

FINAL SHOW NOVEMBER 4 COUNCIL BLUFFS IA - BOARD OF PHARMACY MEDICAL MARIJUANA PUBLIC HEARINGS- HARRAH'S CASINO(of all places)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XorlUPNQqq8
Reply to this comment
by azure13 October 20, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
lol, why shouldn't health insurance pay for it? Look, several polls have now shown that the majority want a public option and health insurance reform.
GET IT DONE.

CBS News: "The much-debated 'public option' --a health insurance plan like Medicare administered by the government ?- still gets majority support."
GOV?T HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
Favor 62%
Oppose 31
Quinnipiac: American voters ?support key parts of the plan, including 61 - 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans??
Pew: ?Would you favor or oppose? A government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?
55 Favor
38 Oppose
Even Rasmussen, choice pollster of conservatives, said: ?46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed.?
Reply to this comment
by writer10 October 20, 2009 6:29 PM EDT
this article states 44% in favour - that's not a majority - while I personally don't use it, I would never be opposed to an individual who needs it for a medical condition to ease their pain - As I am blessed to be healthy, it's not my call to state any view of what helps an individual gain relief from their suffering - if it helps them, insurance should pay for it as they, the client pay a hefty sum to insurance companies for their policies.
by AOCGUY October 20, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
What's to pay for - let those that need it grow it and leave them alone. This is a plant that grows wild on every continent save the polar icecaps. Think of the money saved if we quit waisting our law enforcement resources on a stupid weed.
by cidaia October 28, 2009 7:37 PM EDT
Letting people grow it themselves and "leaving them alone" is a radical break in the way "medicine" is done.

Imagine if we viewed any other pain treatment that way - without concern for dosage, purity, or anything else.

Maybe there is something to be said for a looser attitude toward pain medication - maybe all of our fussing to not let sick people abuse painkillers, maybe our prosecution of Michael Jackson's death, maybe the whole attitude driving this is wrong; maybe we should just let people who think they are sick do whatever they want. Libertarians argue in favor of freedom; certainly such an approach would encourage personal responsibility. But that is an argument that has to be made separately.

If the legalization of pot also means doing away with scientific standards, a doctor's oversight, and switching careful dosages for open and unregulated self-medication, then that is a major change, with major ramifications, that should be adequately addressed and analyzed, so people know what they're voting for.
by stuart-johns2 October 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
Well this will drive the private insurance industry into a real tizzy if nothing does. They will feel that if marijuana for medical uses is paid for by government insurance, everyone will flock to gov run insurance to get free weeds. I can hear the argument already.
Reply to this comment
by pubsrtoast October 20, 2009 7:37 PM EDT
They're already flocking to them for free erections, so why not?
by us_1776 October 20, 2009 9:54 PM EDT
This would actually SAVE the insurance companies money. Medical marijuana is an order of magnitude cheaper than a lot of other drugs that are prescribed for pain. A whole lot cheaper.
by ToolMangler1 October 20, 2009 10:12 PM EDT
the real fun starts when the insurance companies start treating marijuana the way they did Tobacco.
Legalizing marijuana will only change the direction the money flows.
by the74blaster October 20, 2009 11:11 PM EDT
by stuart-johns2 October 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
Well this will drive the private insurance industry into a real tizzy if nothing does. They will feel that if marijuana for medical uses is paid for by government insurance, everyone will flock to gov run insurance to get free weeds. I can hear the argument already.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good point! I am waiting for the right wing extreamists to call legalizing it socialism. After all, if its legalized it will put the local small business drug dealers out of business by increasing supply and lowering prices.

Well of course it could also break up the Mexican Drug cartels monopoly on grass.

Where are the lobbyists who work for these drug companies when you need them?
See all 54 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER