AMA opposes Obama's Health Care plans...

AMA opposes Obama's Health Care plans...
Today at 12:16am
WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

In the presidential campaign last year and in a letter to Congress last week, Mr. Obama called for a new “public health insurance option,” which he said would compete with private insurers and keep them honest.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Wednesday that she supported that goal. “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said Wednesday on MSNBC.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

More...

JasonOne said:

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

More...

Click to expand...

That's the whole point. That is the ultimate goal of Obama and the Democrats, to get rid of private health insurance and force us all onto the government crap so that we all get the same crap health care. Don't believe me? Don't take my word for it. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3929SL7jag&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3929SL7jag&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

I'm glad to see the AMA taking a public stand... perhaps they should have been more active in recent years and not waited until the horses are charging the open barn door before attempting to close it. This crap didn't come up overnight and most MSM outlets have aided and abetted!

IMO, any health care reform legislation should be careful not to undermine private sector health care coverage while seeking to address the very real shortcomings in the health system at large i.e., incidence of uninsured persons, costs that have been rising at a multiple of inflation and economic growth for a prolonged period of time, etc. In addition, it should not impose new burdens that could adversely impact the cost structures of businesses, making U.S. companies less competitive vis-a-vis their international rivals or raising the effective cost of employment so as to create a higher level of structural unemployment.

With respect to the AMA's position, the White House should issue a challenge to the AMA to offer its own plan that would:

1. Dramatically reduce the incidence of uninsured persons, with benchmarks for the near-term.

2. Bring about cost containment so that health costs do not rise at a multiple of inflation and economic growth. In the long-run, those rising health costs are not sustainable, and the sooner the issue is addressed, the easier the transition will be.

If the AMA puts forth a plan, that plan should be given serious consideration in the mix of overall health care reform options that might be available at the time. If, however, the AMA does not furnish such a plan that credibly addresses the two biggest problems (coverage gaps and costs) with the U.S. health care system, then it will be clear that the AMA is merely trying to defend the status quo.

Hopefully, the AMA would provide a credible alternative, as the more options that are available, the greater the chance that a beneficial approach to health care reform can be pursued.

donsutherland1 said:

2. Bring about cost containment so that health costs do not rise at a multiple of inflation and economic growth. In the long-run, those rising health costs are not sustainable, and the sooner the issue is addressed, the easier the transition will be.

Click to expand...

In this instance, while cost controls are always desirable, we are measuring economic concerns against the health factor of people. If the health of the average American deteriorates at a pace where the cost of providing medical care outpaces inflation and/or economic growth, how can the healthcare system be reasonably expected to reduce its costs to keep on pace with the economy?

WI Crippler said:

In this instance, while cost controls are always desirable, we are measuring economic concerns against the health factor of people. If the health of the average American deteriorates at a pace where the cost of providing medical care outpaces inflation and/or economic growth, how can the healthcare system be reasonably expected to reduce its costs to keep on pace with the economy?

Click to expand...

WI Crippler,

Just so it is clear, I'm talking about a long-run average. Clearly, there will be fluctuations. One case in point, among others, would be an epidemic or pandemic.

donsutherland1 said:

With respect to the AMA's position, the White House should issue a challenge to the AMA to offer its own plan that would:

1. Dramatically reduce the incidence of uninsured persons, with benchmarks for the near-term.

Click to expand...

Eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.

donsutherland1 said:

2. Bring about cost containment so that health costs do not rise at a multiple of inflation and economic growth. In the long-run, those rising health costs are not sustainable, and the sooner the issue is addressed, the easier the transition will be.

Click to expand...

Eliminate the current health insurance monstrosity across the board.

donsutherland1 said:

If the AMA puts forth a plan, that plan should be given serious consideration in the mix of overall health care reform options that might be available at the time. If, however, the AMA does not furnish such a plan that credibly addresses the two biggest problems (coverage gaps and costs) with the U.S. health care system, then it will be clear that the AMA is merely trying to defend the status quo.

Click to expand...

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

donsutherland1 said:

Hopefully, the AMA would provide a credible alternative, as the more options that are available, the greater the chance that a beneficial approach to health care reform can be pursued.

Click to expand...

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.

donsutherland1 said:

WI Crippler,

Just so it is clear, I'm talking about a long-run average. Clearly, there will be fluctuations. One case in point, among others, would be an epidemic or pandemic.

Click to expand...

My concern also is the overall long range average. With obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc... on the rise, despite economic fluctuations up or down, I think its a difficult idea, to try and match health cost concerns, to economic factors.

rebelbuc said:

I'm glad to see the AMA taking a public stand... perhaps they should have been more active in recent years and not waited until the horses are charging the open barn door before attempting to close it. This crap didn't come up overnight and most MSM outlets have aided and abetted!

Click to expand...

Doctors are not economists. But we shall note their objection and continue on with the debate.

I saw a recent TV report on socialized medicine in Ireland - my take from the report is that Ireland's foray into socialized medicine is as much a failure as what I believe England and Canada have experienced. However, I didn't see any mention of the fact that Ireland seems to have made no attempt to destroy private medicine in the process of providing poor socialized medicine.

I spent 4 days in Ireland last year and discussed their situation with the owner of the bed and breakfast where we stayed. His family seemed to be of what I would consider US middle class means. He could afford to continue his private medical plan and, thankfully for him, that is the only thing he felt allowed him to obtain quick and beneficial knee surgery (rather than waiting on a long list to see a butcher). He told us first hand of his distrust and dislike of socialized medicine.

I do not think that Obama and most Democrats have the same thing in mind. On one hand Obama campaigned on universal health care that allowed those of us who could to continue private coverage. That is not what I understand is in the bill that some are proposing. (Did Obama lie again... we'll see?) They seem to want government total control... and besides, we cannot afford to print more funny money to fund such a program. I think that our course will be much further to the left than Ireland's. After all, they seem to be embracing capitalism and are doing fairly well these days... and our government officials are rejecting capitalism!

Very interesting - this may change my opinion a bit. Does anybody have link to the full AMA document? It isn't on their site and I'd like to read the entire thing

donsutherland1 said:

IMO, any health care reform legislation should be careful not to undermine private sector health care coverage while seeking to address the very real shortcomings in the health system at large i.e., incidence of uninsured persons, costs that have been rising at a multiple of inflation and economic growth for a prolonged period of time, etc. In addition, it should not impose new burdens that could adversely impact the cost structures of businesses, making U.S. companies less competitive vis-a-vis their international rivals or raising the effective cost of employment so as to create a higher level of structural unemployment.

With respect to the AMA's position, the White House should issue a challenge to the AMA to offer its own plan that would:

1. Dramatically reduce the incidence of uninsured persons, with benchmarks for the near-term.

2. Bring about cost containment so that health costs do not rise at a multiple of inflation and economic growth. In the long-run, those rising health costs are not sustainable, and the sooner the issue is addressed, the easier the transition will be.

If the AMA puts forth a plan, that plan should be given serious consideration in the mix of overall health care reform options that might be available at the time. If, however, the AMA does not furnish such a plan that credibly addresses the two biggest problems (coverage gaps and costs) with the U.S. health care system, then it will be clear that the AMA is merely trying to defend the status quo.

Hopefully, the AMA would provide a credible alternative, as the more options that are available, the greater the chance that a beneficial approach to health care reform can be pursued.

Click to expand...

Challenging an opponent to come up with a better plan rather than addressing the opponent's arguments against your plan is shoddy debating. Whether or not the AMA has a fully-fledged plan to reform US health care in their back pocket, their criticisms of Obama's plan stand on their own merit

hazlnut said:

Doctors are not economists. But we shall note their objection and continue on with the debate.

Click to expand...

Yeah! And most politicians are neither economists or medical experts! The so-called experts that they employ in their cabinets, the consultants the hire, the lobbyists who pay to guide them in their policies are the ones who have put us in our present situation - inflated medical costs and unprecedented US debt. Let's not listen to a bunch of doctors about medicine!

WI Crippler said:

My concern also is the overall long range average. With obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc... on the rise, despite economic fluctuations up or down, I think its a difficult idea, to try and match health cost concerns, to economic factors.

Click to expand...

I fully understand such concerns, WI Crippler. The issue is that health services need to be paid for. The funds to make such payments are generated by economic activity. Economic activity provides incomes (individuals and businesses) and tax revenue that finance health expenditures.

If health costs rise persistently faster than the economy grows, there will be a scarcity of funds at some point. The situation would be analogous to an asset bubble, except in this case it would be an expenditures bubble. At some point, the costs would become so great that immediate hard rationing would occur out of necessity, as defaults on payments would increase rapidly, government would cap its expenditures due to competing priorities/inability to borrow unlimited sums of money, etc. That situation would be disruptive, both economically and with respect to those whose health needs would not be accommodated.

It is highly unlikely that foreigners would be willing to lend to the U.S. to finance those excess costs absent reforms that contain the growth of such costs. Otherwise, they would be concerned that they might never be repaid.

Kernel Sanders said:

Challenging an opponent to come up with a better plan rather than addressing the opponent's arguments against your plan is shoddy debating. Whether or not the AMA has a fully-fledged plan to reform US health care in their back pocket, their criticisms of Obama's plan stand on their own merit

Click to expand...

Kernel Sanders,

Looking back, "challenge" might an inappropriate word. I should have worded things better. I believe encouraging opponents to bring their own ideas to the table with a focus on addressing the core problems confronting the present arrangement would facilitate a more informed discussion and probably lead to better policy choices in the end. That was my intent.

hazlnut said:

Doctors are not economists. But we shall note their objection and continue on with the debate.

Click to expand...

Neither are patients.

The only "debate" should be between doctor and patient.

Everybody else has no stake in the matter and needs to stay the hell out of it.

Government needs to stay out.

Insurance needs to get out.

Everybody.

hazlnut said:

Doctors are not economists. But we shall note their objection and continue on with the debate.

Click to expand...

Nope, they are just the ones that actually know what the **ck is the going on with healthcare on a day to day basis. I love how easily you dismiss them.

donsutherland1 said:

I fully understand such concerns, WI Crippler. The issue is that health services need to be paid for. The funds to make such payments are generated by economic activity. Economic activity provides incomes (individuals and businesses) and tax revenue that finance health expenditures.

If health costs rise persistently faster than the economy grows, there will be a scarcity of funds at some point. The situation would be analogous to an asset bubble, except in this case it would be an expenditures bubble. At some point, the costs would become so great that immediate hard rationing would occur out of necessity, as defaults on payments would increase rapidly, government would cap its expenditures due to competing priorities/inability to borrow unlimited sums of money, etc. That situation would be disruptive, both economically and with respect to those whose health needs would not be accommodated.

It is highly unlikely that foreigners would be willing to lend to the U.S. to finance those excess costs absent reforms that contain the growth of such costs. Otherwise, they would be concerned that they might never be repaid.

Click to expand...

I see this as an inevitable scenario, no matter which path one supports, private market insurance or UHC. Until people take such measures to excercise personal responsibility for their own health, and not rely on the health care system to prop up their unhealthy lifestyles, the costs will continue to climb, no matter who is footing the bill.

WI Crippler said:

I see this as an inevitable scenario, no matter which path one supports, private market insurance or UHC. Until people take such measures to excercise personal responsibility for their own health, and not rely on the health care system to prop up their unhealthy lifestyles, the costs will continue to climb, no matter who is footing the bill.

Click to expand...

Why should people take such responsibility? Where in the current delivery mode of healthcare does it make sense to take such responsibility?

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.

Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance
The Physicians’ Proposal for National Health Insurance establishes the vision and principles of a single-payer health system for the United States. The document was composed by a distinguished group of physician leaders, and secured the endorsement of 8,000 physicians by the time of its publication in the August 13, 2003 JAMA.

The text outlines the general structure of the single-payer plan: eligibility and coverage, physician and outpatient care payment, global budgeting of hospitals, the establishment of a national long-term care program, planned capital investment and single-payer financing.

Click to expand...

How Much Would a Single-Payer System Cost?
The financial viability of a single-payer system has been analyzed time and again by researchers both from the U.S. government and independent consulting firms. Each time the conclusion is the same: single-payer saves enough on wasteful paperwork to provide high quality health coverage to all and contain future health spending. This paper catalogs the analyses of proposed single-payer systems at both the federal and state levels.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

Why should people take such responsibility? Where in the current delivery mode of healthcare does it make sense to take such responsibility?

Click to expand...

Why should they, or why would they?

donsutherland1 said:

IMO, any health care reform legislation should be careful not to undermine private sector health care coverage while seeking to address the very real shortcomings in the health system at large i.e., incidence of uninsured persons, costs that have been rising at a multiple of inflation and economic growth for a prolonged period of time, etc. In addition, it should not impose new burdens that could adversely impact the cost structures of businesses, making U.S. companies less competitive vis-a-vis their international rivals or raising the effective cost of employment so as to create a higher level of structural unemployment.

With respect to the AMA's position, the White House should issue a challenge to the AMA to offer its own plan that would:

1. Dramatically reduce the incidence of uninsured persons, with benchmarks for the near-term.

2. Bring about cost containment so that health costs do not rise at a multiple of inflation and economic growth. In the long-run, those rising health costs are not sustainable, and the sooner the issue is addressed, the easier the transition will be.

If the AMA puts forth a plan, that plan should be given serious consideration in the mix of overall health care reform options that might be available at the time. If, however, the AMA does not furnish such a plan that credibly addresses the two biggest problems (coverage gaps and costs) with the U.S. health care system, then it will be clear that the AMA is merely trying to defend the status quo.

Hopefully, the AMA would provide a credible alternative, as the more options that are available, the greater the chance that a beneficial approach to health care reform can be pursued.

Click to expand...

Team Obama already has cost containment and reduction in its plans.

Its called rationing. :thumbs:

That is what they mean by "reducing costs". Simply having the government become the monopoly kingpin on healthcare isnt going to reduce cost, it will explode cost, so one of the ways for them to reduce cost is going to be rationing care. Then they will start lecturing private citizens on what cars to drive, based on safety standards, those who dont make that safety standard will not be made or produced. Then they will determine what types of foods we can eat, based on another set of health standards. Then we have the government lecturing (aka...telling us) what physical activities will be acceptable on a whole nother set of safety/health standards, all in the name of "reducing costs". Before you know it, life will be one gigantic government provided subsidy, when they think that particular subsidy isnt worth their investment any longer, it will be phased out and done away with.

This is how government functions, this is how government circles the wagons around its intended targets (and unintended targets) that restricts choices in all aspects of life, and this is what the left and Democrats are pushing for.

celticlord said:

Do away with health insurance. That is the beast that drives up costs; kill that beast and costs come crashing back down to earth.

Click to expand...

You don't have to do away with health insurance. High deductible catastrophic insurance plans would have the same effect.

Don't Tase Me Bro said:

You don't have to do away with health insurance. High deductible catastrophic insurance plans would have the same effect.

Click to expand...

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.

Don't Tase Me Bro said:

You don't have to do away with health insurance. High deductible catastrophic insurance plans would have the same effect.

Click to expand...

As has already been noted, that is a significant departure from the current health insurance model. I agree that would be an improvement over the current system. I think there are structurally better solutions than that, however.

Personally, I am of the opinion that, instead of insurance, an expansion of the "health savings account" is the most effective model. It needs to be more than just a repository of patient contributions, but it should at its foundation be an asset to the patient.

WI Crippler said:

Why should they, or why would they?

Click to expand...

In the current system, both questions are equally appropriate, and pretty much coincide.