As House Democrats prepare to vote Saturday on a bill to overhaul the nation's health care system, they picked up an important endorsement Thursday from the 40-million-member AARP, the nation's largest senior citizens group and the nation's largest doctor group.
AARP, which has been pushing for a health overhaul for more than a year, had withheld a formal endorsement of any of the bills being developed by Democrats. That endorsement was followed by a noon Central time announcement from the Chicago-based American Medical Association in which the nation's largest doctors group voiced its support for the measure.
AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said Thursday that the group saw the House Democratic bill as the most promising proposal.
More at chicagotribune.com
AMA to Obama: Feh. - The Treatment:
I suppose this isn't surprising. Among other things, the AMA represents an ever-shrinking portion of the physician population. And, by all appearances, it represents the profession at both its most craven and conservative. Remember, this is the organization that funded pro-tobacco candidates even as its top public health priority was to reduce smoking. And, remember, this is the orgnaization that in 1995 endorsed Newt Gingrich's plan to savage Medicare by, among other things, forcing beneficiaries to pay more for their care. What convinced the AMA to make this deal? Chiefly, it was Gingrich's agreement to strike a provision that would have cut physician fees.
Of course, not all physicians agreed with the AMA back then. The American College of Physicians, a more liberal group, protested the cuts because of what it would mean for the eldery. And the same is true today. Smaller, more liberal physician groups are lining up behind reform. They want malpractice relief and a Medicare fix, too. But they also want what's best for their patients--and their country. They want to help construct a deal, one that works for everybody.
So the question going forward is how the medical profession as a whole chooses to act. Whatever their lobbying presence in Washington, physicians have enormous influence over the public as individuals. Health reform is a complex issue; patients will be asking their doctors, whom they trust, what to think. Physicians say they have a higher obligation than other professions, that they are healers and not just tradesmen looking to make a buck. And many really believe that, I know. Now is the time to show it.
But some doctors have distanced themselves from the AMA’s statements. Doctors For America (DFA) — grassroots organization of doctors in all fifty states — issued a statement and hosted a conference call in support of a robust public option. Unlike the AMA, which has been steadily loosing power and currently represents “maybe 20% of physicians in this country,” DFA is “a grassroots organization” putting forth the views of “thousands of physicians” rather than “a small group of organizers.” Read More at the Wonk Room
Great article laying out three theories about the reasons behind the AMA about face today. Pretty long, so just a few snips here - be sure to read it all.
First, the background...
An article appearing in this morning’s NY Times by health politics uber-scribe Robert Pear declared “Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan.” It went on to describe the objections of the American Medical Association (AMA) to the public health insurance option, the centerpiece of the health care plans being pushed by the relevant committees in Congress, in no uncertain terms. But by the early afternoon, the AMA was releasing a “clarifying statement” along the lines of “Oh, of course we’d be OK with certain types of public plans, silly!” So what the hell happened? The gossip... Therefore, when the AMA seemed to step up to oppose a critical element of the President’s health care plan, everyone was ready to pounce – and pummel them.
- Here’s Media Matter suggesting a curious confluence between the AMA and private insurance’s lobbying efforts.
- Here’s Igor Volsky on Think Progress pointing out, “But the AMA, which has a long history of opposing the enactment of Medicare and other health reform legislation, does not speak for all doctors.” (Igor’s right, by the way. The AMA represents maybe 20% of physicians in this country).
- Here’s Jon Cohn pointing out the inconsistencies of their argument.
- Here’s Matt Holt on The Health Care Blog saying, “It’s a pity that as a policy wonk I can’t take them seriously.”
- Here’s Merrill Goozer summarizing, “When push came to shove, the doctors stood with the companies that absorb an inordinate amount of their time filling out forms.”
- And finally, the coup de grace, Maggie Mahar’s killer post, “The AMA Would Make Health Care Unaffordable to Many Americans.”
Now, Drum Roll please.... That’s right, the AMA convention begins this Saturday in Chicago. On the agenda includes the usual annual business of the organization, which, judging by their agenda, will doubtlessly include a number of votes on what policies to support or not support on health care reform. I don’t know how your annual conventions go, but if I’m attending one, I generally don’t like it when the organization published a position in the freakin’ New York Times before I even get a chance to vote on it. To say the timing of the article suggests the leadership is nor respecting the opinions of the members is an understatement.
All of this sets up a fascinating moment on Monday when President Obama addresses the AMA Convention. It was already highly anticipated – we know Obama’s new stump speech on health care specifically includes numerous mentions of the public plan – and now has been dialed up to eleven. I am still laughing at that one. Read More at ePluribus Media - who cross posted with the permission of Tim Foley from Change.org
The AMA is not just a bunch of doctors, but among other things an extremely lucrative lobbying organization that has given more than $12 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates since 1998. And since 1998, according to the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org, some 64 percent of the AMA's donations to federal candidates have been to Republicans -- although 2008, in which the AMA gave 56 percent of its contributions to Democrats, was a notable exception. Since 1998, almost four-fifths of the AMA's donation to Senate candidates have been to Republicans (including 64 percent in 2008). They have been a bit more equitable on the House side More from the sources at FiveThirtyEightThe AMA is dying. Mostly made up of richer, older doctors working as specialists. It no longer represents the majority of American physicians- only about 1/3 of doctors; 90% of doctors over the age of 70; less than 30% of doctors under 50.
I will make two stories easier for you to find:
Dr. Chris McCoy: Dear AMA: I Quit!
Dr. McCoy is Policy Chair for the National Physicians Alliance
and
I'm Out of here: A physician's goodbye to the AMA
Bet there are more out there - I didn't even have to search to find these two and there are mentions of more in the comments of each.
We have not forgotten Operation Coffee Cup either.
Operation Coffee Cup was a campaign conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) during the late 1950s and early 1960s in opposition to the Democrats' plans to extend Social Security to include health insurance for the elderly, later known as Medicare. As part of the plan, doctors' wives would organize coffee meetings in an attempt to convince acquaintances to write letters to Congress opposing the program. The operation received support from Ronald Reagan, who in 1961 produced the LP record Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine for the AMA, outlining arguments against what he called "socialized medicine". This record would be played at the coffee meetings. Seeing as how people in the Medicare are indicating that they like Medicare - that they have fewer problems obtaining medical care, less financial hardship due to medical bills, and higher overall satisfaction with their coverage than those with private insurance, you should be hanging your head in shame. If you are not on our side - the side of patients - then just go away and sit in a corner and be quiet.
The American Medical Association is now saying it is willing to collude with insurance industry near-monopolies in an effort to prevent real competition and choice from entering the marketplace in the form of a public health insurance option
Read More...
...My comment evolved into something much more -- it forced me to crystallize my thinking in a direction that many other factors in my life have pushed me away from.
You see, I'm a physician, and a very close family member is a physician. I am a delegate to the AMA -- which, as you know, remains steadfastly opposed to a single-payer solution, although it has developed an extensive reform proposal based upon providing insurance to everyone via tax credits -- subsidized health insurance.
But I have come to the conclusion that our insurance based system is simply not reparable.
I've decided it was time to come out. But in the end, the AMA plan, like President Obama's plan, and Sen. Baucus's plan, is still based on the core of our present system: one that is run by, dominated by, and subservient to the health insurance industry, the hospital industry (especially those tied in to the insurance industry), and big pharma.
It is a system that has created an unfixable disconnect in the traditional concept of a market driven by supply and demand, in that the purchasers of health care are not those who are receiving the care. It is a system in which the basic idea of competition has been turned upside down, driven not be quality, value, service or convenience, but by the most self-serving deals that can be driven by the insurance industry. Single payer health care might mean the death of private medicine in this country. It would likely mean that the clinic that my family member spent an entire professional career proudly building using loans that the clinic's physician partners took out on their own risk, would go out of business, because unless reimbursement rates were substantially increased above current Medicare rates, medical practices, even successful group practices, that are not owned by huge corporations or integrated systems that can take advantage of tax scams like those described above and preferential pricing only available to hospital owned practices -- will not be able to stay in business.
But you know what? Private, independent medicine is being slaughtered now. It's going extinct. And with its loss, an important part of what in the past made American medicine so vital, so personal and of such high quality will disappear, too.
That may be the price we have to pay. I have concluded that it's time to get private insurance out of the business of running and paying for health care, even if we were able to get every man, woman and child a health insurance policy, especially when insurance is used, as it often is now, as a way for huge corporations to gain a stranglehold on markets, and take all choice away from patients. Even if it means that many of my colleagues, including in my own family, wind up having to sell (probably at a substantial loss) what they've spent their lives building.
You see, while I understand capitalism, I also firmly believe that in an enlightened, wealthy society, we really have to do what does the most good for the most people. And if we believe that health care is a right and not a privilege, polishing the edges of a system that is rotten at the core will never get there. Read It All Here
|
