• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AMA opposes Obama's Health Care plans...

Unlike the AMA, the Physicians for Single Payer have done the research and have a plan.......

Single-Payer Primer for the Press | Physicians for a National Health Program

It might be useful to understand who actually funds and runs the AMA and read alternative voices to get a more complete picture of what medical providers think about this issue.

A liberal advocacy group would be in favor of this.

I LOVE how anyone that doesn't agree with the glorious liberal ideology "hasn't done their homework" and is obviously ignorant.
 
The AMA opposes any change in the status quo. Especially anything that has the chance of upsetting their applecart of increasing costs. They always have and always will.


American Medical Association Trying To Torpedo Health Care Reform Again
Historically and philosophically, however, AMA's opposition is hardly newsworthy. Despite a lofty reputation and purported commitment to universal coverage, AMA has fought almost every major effort at health care reform of the past 70 years. The group's reputation on this matter is so notorious that historians pinpoint it with creating the ominous sounding phrase "socialized medicine" in the early decades of the 1900s.

"The AMA used it to mean any kind of proposal that involved an increased role for the government in the health care system," Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina, told NPR in a 2007 interview. "They also used it to mean things in the private system that they didn't like. So, at one point, HMOs were a form of socialized medicine."

Indeed, the role played by AMA throughout health care reform battles past has often been primarily as the defender of the status quo. In 1935, fears of an AMA backlash helped persuade Franklin Roosevelt's advisers to drop a health care article from the Social Security package -- fearful that the opposition would sink the legislation altogether.

Concerned about government restriction on and oversight over surgical activities -- not to mention the loss of physician income -- the group deployed the "socialized medicine" argument to undermine Harry Truman's effort at a national health care system years later.

In 1961, AMA organized a campaign to block Medicare. Titled "Operation Coffeecup," the effort insisted that the government-sponsored system would lead to a varying form of totalitarianism.

There are other voices out there besides the one behemoth obstructionist group opposed to any kind of change. I expected their response and knew it would be similar to their last response and the one before that. They're predictable.

What I wanted to know and understand is the entire debate. I never hinted that anyone was ignorant, but offered another view from another group of physicians.

This is too important for your partisan bull****.
 
There are other voices out there besides the one behemoth obstructionist group opposed to any kind of change. I expected their response and knew it would be similar to their last response and the one before that. They're predictable.

What I wanted to know and understand is the entire debate. I never hinted that anyone was ignorant, but offered another view from another group of physicians.

This is too important for your partisan bull****.

You specifically stated that the AMA hasn't done their research, but then you point us to a group called Physicians for Single Payer, whose very name suggests they have a biased agenda of their own. Why should we believe your group is anymore credible than the AMA?
 
You specifically stated that the AMA hasn't done their research, but then you point us to a group called Physicians for Single Payer, whose very name suggests they have a biased agenda of their own. Why should we believe your group is anymore credible than the AMA?

Actually, they're not my "group", but an opposing view for contrast and consideration. Rather then listen to the AMA alone, I'd prefer to know other points of view. Their's is well known.

The AMA offered nothing other then opposing any change in the current structure. It's pretty obvious that the rest of the country thinks the current course is wrong and wants some kind of health care reform. Rather then be part of the change and helping define it, the AMA wants to maintain the status quo. That's no plan. Other then obstruct what's going on, bring on a real debate about what the new system needs to look like.

The AMA sounds eerily like Republicans, offer no plan, but oppose any change. Yeah, that'll work.
 
Eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.


Eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.


The only viable "reform" is to eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.


The only credible alternative is to eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.

The health insurance system in this country is geared towards price maximization. In every respect, it operates to inflate prices. Until that beast is killed outright, there will be no effective cost containment in healthcare.

Government plans merely substitute cost maximization for price maximization--until the government runs out of money, as is happening with Britain's National Health Service right now.

The only rational economic structure is one where the consumer of healthcare (i.e., the patient), is 100% burdened with the the costs of his/her own care. The idea of "sharing risk" sounds all cute and warm and fuzzy and fully of compassion and preserving of life and so on, but it is bad economics and has produced artificial and irrational price inflation in healthcare.

Do away with health insurance. That is the beast that drives up costs; kill that beast and costs come crashing back down to earth.
It won't happen in a million years, well maybe a hundred years.
 
This scares the bejeezus out of me. This is the thing that Obama wants most, and it is the one thing that will be impossible to undo later on. Once you've got it, you're stuck with it. Just ask the Canadians and British.
 
This scares the bejeezus out of me. This is the thing that Obama wants most, and it is the one thing that will be impossible to undo later on. Once you've got it, you're stuck with it. Just ask the Canadians and British.

Yep, once this happens the Age of American Socialism will be in full swing and the idea of this being a free country will be a thing of the past. Freedom loving individuals will have lost the war.
 
Last edited:
"We don't want to restrict peoples access to healthcare"--something along those lines..you've all heard or read it now a bazillion times. Its the Obama canned line.

He endorses and supports a board along the lines of 'Daschles's HealthCare Board'....which is basically politicians deciding what procedures are worth doing and what are not.

Oh but don't worry...they claim they won't restrict care..then wtf is the purpose of he board.

You will be able to choose your doctor..as long as they are on our list.
You will be allowed to choose your insurance provider..as long as we agree with it.

Anyone who isn't comatose can smell the crap Obama is peddling under a shroud of half truths and BS.

Luckily most of the Democrats in Congress are not the lunatic Far Left Pelosi/Obama types they are moderate to conservative Democrats...Obama will have a hell of a time getting them to apply socialism to the USA when their constituents will hang them for it.

ObamaCare hopefully will die like HillaryCare.
 
BINGO!

Name the only insurance that covers anything and everything?

Health insurance. Insurance is there for catastrophic incidents, not routine stuff, except for health insurance that is.

When was the last time you claimed an oil change on car insurance?
When was the last time you claimed an AC filter on homeowners insurance?

Routine stuff that dont need 2 other groups paying for them should not be insured by either of the 2 groups.

We just had a clinic open up here in town that is not taking insurance. It has set prices on all procedures. It was started by a group of doctors who got fed up with Medicare and Medicaid not paying up (same government that now wants to include everybody on these programs with ObamaCare) and having to deal with intermediate groups instead of just the doctor patient relationship. You can go there for all the routine tests, procedures, shots, etc, etc. They can refer you to a hospital for major medical care, but everything else is paid out of pocket.

I can agree with cutting out routine "maintenance" medical procedures, like physicals, eye exams, dental exams, etc on principle.
But it gets a bit more difficult when you start getting into just what is a "catastrophic" medical event, and what is not. Who is going to make that determination? If its the private market, then in order to compete and offer a better product, they will eventually reach the point where we are today. And do you trust the government to make a determination as to what is or is not a catastrophic medical event?
 
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the AMA undermine Truman's plans to reform health care, and then Kennedy's plans to reform health care, and then Clinton's plan to reform health care?
 
I can agree with cutting out routine "maintenance" medical procedures, like physicals, eye exams, dental exams, etc on principle.
But it gets a bit more difficult when you start getting into just what is a "catastrophic" medical event, and what is not. Who is going to make that determination? If its the private market, then in order to compete and offer a better product, they will eventually reach the point where we are today. And do you trust the government to make a determination as to what is or is not a catastrophic medical event?

I suspect that if you structured it more like car insurance or homeowners insurance (or any type of liability insurance), your concern could be addressed better.
 
I suspect that if you structured it more like car insurance or homeowners insurance (or any type of liability insurance), your concern could be addressed better.

Well for one, you have to start with the states. State legislatures write insurance laws. Forget going after the companies. You affect the change at the state level. All this demonization of the private market is just a waste of time and energy. The laws written regarding insurance don't happen at the company level. You'd have to relax whatever health insurance related laws there are at the state level, to allow the market to create a program of this nature.
Besides catastrophic only health insurance is not that expensive anyway. People just don't want it. People are demanding a product that is all inclusive, and then bitching about the price of it. So all this pissing on about the market being the problem is really a bunch of hot air(not to say there aren't problems, but its not the core problem). They are trying to deliver supply, for the demand. The demand is just ludicrous, and the market follows. Any other market, and nobody has a problem with paying more. I want to go to an all inclusive resort, I reasonably expect to pay more than for a roach motel. I want a car fully loaded, I expect I would pay more than I would for a car with no frills. People are dumb, and want everything covered, and are pissing about the price when they should rather be looking at the value of what they are purchasing. I remember reading on Obama's campaign site, that he favored removing insurance limits on health insurance policies. In effect, forcing the insurance companies to give you unlimited coverage. Talk about driving up costs...
 
Do away with health insurance. That is the beast that drives up costs; kill that beast and costs come crashing back down to earth.

I agree with this, get rid of private insurance.

The only rational economic structure is one where the consumer of healthcare (i.e., the patient), is 100% burdened with the the costs of his/her own care. The idea of "sharing risk" sounds all cute and warm and fuzzy and fully of compassion and preserving of life and so on, but it is bad economics and has produced artificial and irrational price inflation in healthcare.

I disagree with this. The problem is health care is a product for which there is little demand until it is too late. If people paid for their own care, many maybe even most, would not go routinuely and thus allow many diseases to escalate treatment costs exponentially, often beyond what even the wealthy would have the ability to afford, much less anyone else.

Since almost every other industrialized country in the world has UHC, I can not see how anyone could argue that such a policy might shackle the US with an economic disadvantage, unless one is assuming the US is relatively less productive than the rest of the world to begin with and needs some "cheat" (such as leaving a percentage of its population uninsured), to compete.

If one hypothetically removed all private insurance, windfall profit-savings would not be passed on to consumers. It would be pocketed. It seems irrational to expect the medical industry to altruistically hand over savings to consumers, even if brow beaten publicly about it. Money is money.

The only way to drive down costs is to force private doctors to compete against a public system which is mandated to minimize costs by streamlining care to the standard of care, (as opposed to private boutiques which love to itemize a lot of other garbage and are procedure happy), and bargaining down vendors with its immense economy of scale. Other countries do it with great relative economic success, why not here?

Often the healthcare debate is given the analogy of the US Post office vs. Fed Ex, usually as a "proof" of the superiority of the private model. However, the mission of the USPS is much broader than that of Fed Ex. Fed Ex is a niche service by comparison. And frankly, as a consumer, whenever I have used Fed Ex, it has been much more expensive than the USPS. To me, that is not evidence of economic efficiency. Although Fed Ex may provide some benefit for some customers, they complement the USPS rather than replace it. And if I had to choose, I would rather stick with the USPS than Fed Ex. Together, however, they each fill different yet overlapping needs and provide a competitive environment that hones each of its strengths for the consumer, and a similar dynamic could probably work in the health care sector as well.
 
I disagree with this. The problem is health care is a product for which there is little demand until it is too late. If people paid for their own care, many maybe even most, would not go routinuely and thus allow many diseases to escalate treatment costs exponentially, often beyond what even the wealthy would have the ability to afford, much less anyone else.
You are assuming that incentives to the patient are identical with or without insurance. However, a very brief analysis demonstrates that this could never be the case.

With health insurance, for any doctor's visit, hospital stay, medical procedure, or prescription, the patient pays either a small portion of the price directly out of pocket or pays nothing out of pocket. Depending on the source of their insurance benefits, they may not even pay for the insurance premiums out of pocket, instead having them via their employer. Thus, it is impossible for the patient to ever know and accurately assess the price of healthcare and its impact on his or her finances. When the pricing does intrude on the patient's perception of healthcare consumption, it does so as the presentation that healthcare costs are so great as to be beyond the patient's capacity to pay.

The end result is the patient does not consider healthcare costs in managing their finances or their lives.

Without health insurance, the patient would be compelled to pay directly any and all healthcare costs. They would have, by virtue of the checks they write to doctors, perfect information about the impact of healthcare costs on their finances. It is impossible for a patient not to include healthcare costs in managing their finances or their lives.

That preventative care is less costly should be obvious. With direct payment of healthcare costs by the patient, the patient is presented with all pertinent pricing information to rationally decide how much inconvenience from preventative care is worth the cost savings of preventative care, and will seek preventative care to that extent.

How can we be certain of this? Easily--look at automobiles. Most car owners get their oil changed semi-regularly; they are not told to do this, but the cost savings from proper preventative care is a powerful incentive, and even when people are imperfect in maintaining their vehicles, overall they are willing to trade the inconveniences of preventative care for the cost savings of preventative care. Similarly, when one rents a vehicle, one does not worry about the oil, or the transmission fluid; there is no incentive to do so, as one does not directly bear the costs of vehicle maintenance in that circumstance.

Change the payment model from third party payor (insurance company) to direct payment by the patient and the incentives have to change. As incentives change, the attractiveness of preventative care will change.
 
There's a point that everyone's missing. Read between the lines, and you'll get it. I work in the health care industry as a provider and I can tell you what the AMA's position is really about...what it's always about: MONEY. A public health care plan, to work effectively, will, undoubtedly necessitate that physicians start charging less for procedures. The doctors of the AMA don't want their salaries cut. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but let's call it what it is. The AMA is not interested in you or me...if they were, as don said, they would have proposed an alternative. The AMA is interested in the AMA.
 
You are assuming that incentives to the patient are identical with or without insurance. However, a very brief analysis demonstrates that this could never be the case..

You are right, there is in fact less incentive for patients to go routinely if there is no insurance. It is a well-known phenomena among people in the health profession. It has to do with the fact there is no natural demand for health care, it is a learned response. Worse, many people harbor an unconscious fear of it, which makes demand not only a matter of indifference, but avoidance. But such a distinction was irrelevant in my original post since either eventuality would have substantiated the point I was making.

With health insurance, for any doctor's visit, hospital stay, medical procedure, or prescription, the patient pays either a small portion of the price directly out of pocket or pays nothing out of pocket. Depending on the source of their insurance benefits, they may not even pay for the insurance premiums out of pocket, instead having them via their employer. Thus, it is impossible for the patient to ever know and accurately assess the price of healthcare and its impact on his or her finances. When the pricing does intrude on the patient's perception of healthcare consumption, it does so as the presentation that healthcare costs are so great as to be beyond the patient's capacity to pay.

The end result is the patient does not consider healthcare costs in managing their finances or their lives.

Without health insurance, the patient would be compelled to pay directly any and all healthcare costs. They would have, by virtue of the checks they write to doctors, perfect information about the impact of healthcare costs on their finances. It is impossible for a patient not to include healthcare costs in managing their finances or their lives.

So your point is? You must agree with my original assessment then. Being able to visibly see those costs would scare patients off, justifying a delay of health care. Patients, I can attest, claim to be scared off just with token co-pays. Mostly that is probably an excuse, since they often will have just finished telling you they are about to go on a trip to Tahiti. Medicine is a service they need, not want.

Having perfect knowledge of the cost would be doubly scary, even at half the current cost. Many co-pays for basic procedures are fairly small, less than someone would spend in on an impulse buy at the department store, so you have no basis to extrapolate that knowing the full, exact amount would somehow induce greater compliance, when compliance with much lower bugetable amounts is resisted.

How can we be certain of this? Easily--look at automobiles. Most car owners get their oil changed semi-regularly; they are not told to do this, but the cost savings from proper preventative care is a powerful incentive, and even when people are imperfect in maintaining their vehicles, overall they are willing to trade the inconveniences of preventative care for the cost savings of preventative care. Similarly, when one rents a vehicle, one does not worry about the oil, or the transmission fluid; there is no incentive to do so, as one does not directly bear the costs of vehicle maintenance in that circumstance..

Bad example. People are often more abusive to their bodies, although not necessarily consciously so, than they are of their cars. Also, the life-span of cars is more visibly limited, and the cost to replace it visibly high, so there is greater incentive for an oil change. That is not to say no one learns and applies a similar concern toward health care, however even then, most have no clue what the consequences of a lack of treatment would be, or even what the symptoms of something serious may be. The medical consequences of lifestyle, and therefore the true cost of medicine, will always be a nebulous, if not invisible threat to most of the population ... a threat most will not fully understand until it is too late.

A real world example: in the 60's Congress acted on the information that only about 50% of the population went to see a dentist routinely. They funded dental schools and helped push out a ton of dentists to serve the unserved. Forty years later, there still is only a 50% compliance rate. That suggests that the problem is not in the supply, but the demand. There are many well-known irrational factors in the human psyche that invalidate your hypothesis, not to mention the rational ones I have presented.

More significantly, not all serious disease is preventable. People can lower their risk, but not eliminate it. Treatment of many serious diseases is completely unaffordable already by the majority of the population. There is zero chance most could ever budget for such contingencies, ever.

Change the payment model from third party payor (insurance company) to direct payment by the patient and the incentives have to change. As incentives change, the attractiveness of preventative care will change.

Moreover, you still haven't answered the most important issue, how would prices actually fall without competition from a public system? I have never seen much price competition in any branch of medicine except in the more commodity-like cosmetic services. No one feels right about shopping around for bargain heart surgery, believe me*. The medical industry has no incentive to rebate any savings that may fall into their hands, and most doctors in the US expect to be in the upper quintile of earners. Given that the recession is pinching everyone, most doctors would seen any improvement in income as something they wholly deserve, however I suspect even in good times, many would find a way to justify keeping the extra as well.

*although if people have no choice, and if they can afford to travel overseas, sometimes take on additional medical risk and go abroad to get essential medical treatment. It's called medical tourism. That is not an ideal medical solution however, since the hidden cost is the risk inherent in travelling when ill and possible post-op complications which would necessitate expensive retreatment at home anyway, possibly then bankrupting the person.
 
Last edited:
Unlike the AMA, the Physicians for Single Payer have done the research and have a plan.......

While advocates of single payer coverage typically tout the benefits of such an approach, from an economic perspective very real adverse issues associated with monopolies that typically harm consumer welfare arise ie., reduced consumer choice, reduced customization of specialized products/services, long-run costs, lack of innovation, divergence of a monopoly's interests from those of its consumers, etc.
 
There's a point that everyone's missing. Read between the lines, and you'll get it. I work in the health care industry as a provider and I can tell you what the AMA's position is really about...what it's always about: MONEY. A public health care plan, to work effectively, will, undoubtedly necessitate that physicians start charging less for procedures. The doctors of the AMA don't want their salaries cut. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but let's call it what it is. The AMA is not interested in you or me...if they were, as don said, they would have proposed an alternative. The AMA is interested in the AMA.

Don't you already negotiate your rates with insurance companies for procedures? Are insurance companies really asking you to charge them more, for a procedure?
 
Don't jump to the conclusion that the AMA opposes this legislation for some noble, Hippocratic reason. Doctors get rich prescribing procedures and medications that cost a fortune, and they get a piece of it. Of course they would object to anything that makes them less money.
 
Don't jump to the conclusion that the AMA opposes this legislation for some noble, Hippocratic reason. Doctors get rich prescribing procedures and medications that cost a fortune, and they get a piece of it. Of course they would object to anything that makes them less money.

How is that different than a labor union?
 
You are right, there is in fact less incentive for patients to go routinely if there is no insurance. It is a well-known phenomena among people in the health profession. It has to do with the fact there is no natural demand for health care, it is a learned response. Worse, many people harbor an unconscious fear of it, which makes demand not only a matter of indifference, but avoidance. But such a distinction was irrelevant in my original post since either eventuality would have substantiated the point I was making.
Your first sentence is patently false. There are clear economic incentives in preventative care when the patient pays the full cost of care that do not exist in the current health insurance model. Yes, people are reluctant to go to the doctor--and when there is no incentive to do so, that reluctance is not countered and thus predominates in the choices patients make.

So your point is? You must agree with my original assessment then. Being able to visibly see those costs would scare patients off, justifying a delay of health care. Patients, I can attest, claim to be scared off just with token co-pays. Mostly that is probably an excuse, since they often will have just finished telling you they are about to go on a trip to Tahiti. Medicine is a service they need, not want.
Some people would make that choice. However, others do not. I know people who go to the doctor at the first sneeze.

Having perfect knowledge of the cost would be doubly scary, even at half the current cost. Many co-pays for basic procedures are fairly small, less than someone would spend in on an impulse buy at the department store, so you have no basis to extrapolate that knowing the full, exact amount would somehow induce greater compliance, when compliance with much lower bugetable amounts is resisted.
Actually, perfect knowledge of the costs of care would only be scary in a "sticker shock" manner. Fear is primarily a response to an unknown/unknowable phenomenon. Very little that is well known is much feared.

Bad example. People are often more abusive to their bodies, although not necessarily consciously so, than they are of their cars. Also, the life-span of cars is more visibly limited, and the cost to replace it visibly high, so there is greater incentive for an oil change. That is not to say no one learns and applies a similar concern toward health care, however even then, most have no clue what the consequences of a lack of treatment would be, or even what the symptoms of something serious may be. The medical consequences of lifestyle, and therefore the true cost of medicine, will always be a nebulous, if not invisible threat to most of the population ... a threat most will not fully understand until it is too late.
Again, you are presuming incentives do not change. That is an irrational and unsupportable position to take. Incentives most assuredly would change.

A real world example: in the 60's Congress acted on the information that only about 50% of the population went to see a dentist routinely. They funded dental schools and helped push out a ton of dentists to serve the unserved. Forty years later, there still is only a 50% compliance rate. That suggests that the problem is not in the supply, but the demand. There are many well-known irrational factors in the human psyche that invalidate your hypothesis, not to mention the rational ones I have presented.
Those factors do not invalidate my hypothesis. I am not claiming people will be perfect in pursuing preventative care, merely that they will be incented to do so, and that the incentives will have significant impact on their consumption patterns regarding healthcare.

More significantly, not all serious disease is preventable. People can lower their risk, but not eliminate it. Treatment of many serious diseases is completely unaffordable already by the majority of the population. There is zero chance most could ever budget for such contingencies, ever.
True enough, but you are talking about a small sliver of overall healthcare cost and consumption. Also, given the problematic nature of serious disease, it is a markedly different economic discussion. Cost of cancer treatment is not what drives the cost of "normal" healthcare through the roof.


Moreover, you still haven't answered the most important issue, how would prices actually fall without competition from a public system? I have never seen much price competition in any branch of medicine except in the more commodity-like cosmetic services. No one feels right about shopping around for bargain heart surgery, believe me*. The medical industry has no incentive to rebate any savings that may fall into their hands, and most doctors in the US expect to be in the upper quintile of earners. Given that the recession is pinching everyone, most doctors would seen any improvement in income as something they wholly deserve, however I suspect even in good times, many would find a way to justify keeping the extra as well.

Prices would fall because the current price models are only sustainable with insurance, and are in fact driven by the insurance distortion. When the economic concern regarding healthcare is a lack of health insurance for some, rather than access to the services themselves, that alone is proof of an irrational pricing mechanism. Prices could not do anything but fall if health insurance were withdrawn from the equation.

Further, while it is true that healthcare is not a pure commodity, there is competition among physicians just as there is in many service industries--chiefly on the basis of skill/knowledge/competence. Doctor "A" competes with Doctor "B" on the basis of who's "better". A non-distorted market mechanism would leverage even that competition to push prices down overall.

In a functional free market, pricing pressures for such compel both Doctor "A" and Doctor "B" that they are worth the higher fee; their economic incentive is to argue the value of their services and justify whatever fee they seek to assess. The value argument is also part of what would moderate patient behavior and shift the perception of healthcare in a positive direction. People are not troubled by price when they perceive value.
 
donsutherland1 said:
While advocates of single payer coverage typically tout the benefits of such an approach, from an economic perspective very real adverse issues associated with monopolies that typically harm consumer welfare arise ie.,
I don't see the economic benefit or welfare to consumers from AETNA, Blue Cross-Blue Shield et. al. at present.
reduced consumer choice,
I know you're talking about single payer and single payer only, but the proposals that I have seen offer at the very least, one more choice.
reduced customization of specialized products/services,
Who is advocating the elimination of specialized coverage (cancer insurance, long term care etc.) if people so choose to pay for it?
long-run costs,
Costs over the long run is what is trying to be curbed right now
lack of innovation,
I keep hearing that and don't see it, how many study grants do university hospitals receive each year?
divergence of a monopoly's interests from those of its consumers, etc.
What other interest would a government payer plan have other than to provide a vehicle to help pay medical costs. We already know that private insurers interest is to make as much money as possible for themselves and that is not to the consumers benefit.
 
BWG,

You are correct that I'm only talking about single-payer in reply to a member's posted message.

Without doubt there are major issues with respect to the current system. Some major issues include:

1. Persistent high incidence of uninsured persons. This situation imposes costs on the nation's economy.
2. Persistent situation where costs are rising faster than nominal economic growth, an unsustainable situation in the long-term.
3. Procyclicality of a largely employer-based private system.

Any credible health reform efforts will need to tackle those issues. Until I have a chance to examine the actual details of what is on the table, rather than reports of what might be in the works, I will hold off on commenting in any great detail.
 
1. Persistent high incidence of uninsured persons. This situation imposes costs on the nation's economy.

You mean that figure of 46 million who are uninsured? Time for some fun facts:
1. 9.7 million are not Americans.
2. 16 million make more than $50,000.
3. 14 million are eligible for government programs.

This leaves only 8 million uninsured, and be sure, these are not CHRONICALLY uninsured. When you look at the data, the people at the bottom rung of society change completely about every 5 years.

2. Persistent situation where costs are rising faster than nominal economic growth, an unsustainable situation in the long-term.

And maybe technology is improving in the medical sector more than other industries. Compare the cost of a normal Hepatitis B vaccine. See how that price has changed over the years. I'm sure you'll have fun with that.

3. Procyclicality of a largely employer-based private system.

When government runs it is the same thing. Since businesses and people will pay for it, and people are subject to economic fluctuations, the medical industry will still be subject to business cycles just like the rest of the economy. I know that you're not necessarily for government takeover, but nothing will avoid this problem. If there's a business cycle, medicine will necessarily feel it.
 
Doctors are not economists. But we shall note their objection and continue on with the debate.

Obama isn't an economist either; just look at his idiotic policies to date. :roll:

What the AMA knows is that this will indeed lead to Government controlled healthcare and destroy the best medical care systems in the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom