[Bazeilles]

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: June 10, 2009

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.
[Its about time]

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.
[One of the most ridiculous thing that obama has ever said. Who keeps government honest? MSNBC? LMFAO. Government makes the laws that regulate the insurance industry so it would naturally have an advantage by offering its own health insurance.]

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.”
[In related news 1+1=2]

While not the political behemoth it once was, the association probably has more influence than any other group in the health care industry. Lawmakers seek its opinion and support whenever possible. It has repeatedly persuaded Congress to cancel or postpone cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, though it has not secured a “permanent fix.”

If the doctors are too aggressive in fighting the public plan, they risk alienating Democrats whose support they need for legislation to increase their Medicare fees.

The group has historically had a strong lobbying operation, supplemented by generous campaign donations. Since the 2000 election cycle, its political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to Congressional candidates, according to data from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics. Republicans got more than Democrats in the four election cycles before 2008, when 56 percent went to Democrats.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said that in his address to the group next week, Mr. Obama would “outline the case for health care reform and make clear why we can’t afford to wait another year, or another administration, to bring down costs that are crushing families, businesses and government.”
[Uh, how many families do you know that are being "crushed" by health care costs? How many businesses are being "crushed" by this? What ridiculous nonsense. This is all just an excuse to nationalize 1/6 of the US economy. And you know how they're going to bring down costs, don't you? They're going to ration health care.]

Mr. Gibbs did not say whether Mr. Obama would discuss a public insurance plan, the most contentious issue in the debate.

The A.M.A., an umbrella group for 180 medical societies, does not speak for all doctors. One group, Physicians for a National Health Program, supports a single-payer system of insurance, in which a single public agency would pay for health services, but most care would still be delivered by private doctors and hospitals. In recent years, some doctors have become so fed up with the administrative hassles of private insurance that they are looking for alternatives.
[Yep, you just can't account for sheer stupidity. I know a man who sells health insurance and he supports Obamacare too. I guess he wants to be unemployed...]

Until now, stakeholders in the health care industry have generally muted their criticism of Democratic proposals. But as details of the legislation have emerged, the criticism has become more pointed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers, said Tuesday that the government plan proposed by some Senate Democrats could “dismantle employer-based coverage and significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage.”

Under a proposal favored by many Democrats, doctors who take Medicare patients would also have to participate in the new public plan. Democrats say that requirement is needed to make sure the public plan can go into business right away with a large network of doctors.

The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.”

“In addition,” the A.M.A. said, “federal programs traditionally have never required physician or other provider participation, but rather such participation has been on a voluntary basis.”

In an interview, Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said she was delighted by Mr. Obama’s plan to address the doctors.

“Health care reform is as important to us as it is to him,” Dr. Nielsen said. “We will be engaged in discussions in a constructive way. But we absolutely oppose government control of health care decisions or mandatory physician participation in any insurance plan.”

Mr. Obama’s trip recalls a speech to the A.M.A. in Chicago on June 13, 1993, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. She proposed “a new bargain” in which the White House would limit malpractice lawsuits and free doctors from onerous rules if doctors supported her effort to overhaul the health care system.

The association agrees with Mr. Obama on some points. It says that individuals and families who can afford coverage should be required to obtain it.
[That is some serious bull@#$%.]

Like Mr. Obama, the association wants Congress to cut payments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The White House says Medicare pays the private plans 14 percent more than it would cost the government to care for the same people in traditional Medicare.

http://www.nytimes.c...mp;ref=politics








Commence with the reasons why doctors shouldn't be listened to regarding health care...

GO!


Obamacare, cap and tax, bailout after bailout... It is as if Barak Obama is trying to destroy the US economy.

But America will learn what happens when it elects a "progressive" to the white house. Good times will follow the bad ones.

[Emperor Stranger]

Quote

Commence with the reasons why doctors shouldn't be listened to regarding health care...

Obama already told the governors to shove it with no real reason, why should he listen to someone with even less power?

[Charles VI]

This really isn't much of an argument. The American Medical Association has been opposed to publicly-funded healthcare for most of the 20th century.

The fact that the AMA is opposing Obama doesn't say much about Obama's plan specifically, really. They'd be opposed to just about any government initiative.

[Lamuella]

so, how long before Baz abandons this thread? Will he post in it another 5 times? Or is 3 a better estimate? We all know he can't hack having an actual debate.

[Bazeilles]

Charles VI, on Jun 11 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

This really isn't much of an argument. The American Medical Association has been opposed to publicly-funded healthcare for most of the 20th century.

The fact that the AMA is opposing Obama doesn't say much about Obama's plan specifically, really. They'd be opposed to just about any government initiative.

Did you read the article before you posted? I wonder if you actually read it because the AMA makes some pretty specific points such as that private insurers will be driven out of business, that costs would explode and the burden put on the tax payers, and that some doctors are not well enough equipped to handle medicare patients. Those are some pretty specific things so I wonder if you just missed them when you thoroughly read the article.

lamuella said:

so, how long before Baz abandons this thread? Will he post in it another 5 times? Or is 3 a better estimate? We all know he can't hack having an actual debate.

How ironic that you would make such a statement. Sorry, lamuella, but I have a life and cannot sit in front of my computer 24 hours per day, anticipating when you'll grace my threads with your presence. I actually replied to your comparison of Wright/Obama and Muthee/Palin on that other thread and you have yet to respond to it. Did you "abandon" it? Here's the link because I'm so totally sure that you are interested in debate: http://forums.cybern...s...t&p=1604051

SoxNation made the same point that I did so if I'm too 'trolly' for your tastes you can respond to him instead.

This post has been edited by Bazeilles: 11 June 2009 - 02:13 PM

[Emperor Stranger]

Lamuella, on Jun 11 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

so, how long before Baz abandons this thread? Will he post in it another 5 times? Or is 3 a better estimate? We all know he can't hack having an actual debate.

I don't equate leaving a debate with not being able to properly debate. I personally leave debates when I see there is no point in debating any further or I know that someone else can make my points better than I can. (IE, sometimes I leave it up to Bazeilles or my new favorite, Kamerad, to make a response.)

[Ethan Smith]

A Lone Stranger, on Jun 11 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

I don't equate leaving a debate with not being able to properly debate. I personally leave debates when I see there is no point in debating any further or I know that someone else can make my points better than I can. (IE, sometimes I leave it up to Bazeilles or my new favorite, Kamerad, to make a response.)

Don't be hard on yourself.

Anyhoo, it's not really surprising that a group that has always been against government spending to be against government spending.

This post has been edited by Ethan Smith: 11 June 2009 - 02:56 PM

[Emperor Stranger]

Ethan Smith, on Jun 11 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

don't be hard on yourself.

I wasn't actually joking. If someone else can make the same point but better, then why should I make the post?

[Kenadian_2006]

A Lone Stranger, on Jun 11 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

I don't equate leaving a debate with not being able to properly debate. I personally leave debates when I see there is no point in debating any further or I know that someone else can make my points better than I can. (IE, sometimes I leave it up to Bazeilles or my new favorite, Kamerad, to make a response.)

I wouldn't personally leave anything up to Bazeilles, he does not do conservatives any favours. There are much better people (yourself included) who can and should take up your positions.

[Emperor Stranger]

Kenadian_2006, on Jun 11 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

I wouldn't personally leave anything up to Bazeilles, he does not do conservatives any favours. There are much better people (yourself included) who can and should take up your positions.

I don't always agree with either of the two listed, but sometimes they do sometimes post better than I can. (I have major issues in trying to form my thoughts into words, which is why some of my arguments don't come out sounding that great.)

And besides, I try not to be conservative. I try to be more liberal in the original sense: Look at both sides of the argument and choose which side is better. (Not to be confused with today's liberals that choose the politically correct side.)

This post has been edited by A Lone Stranger: 11 June 2009 - 03:00 PM

[Smallfrog]

This arguement seems to only have two points, both of which are pretty much nonesense.

The first is one of cost. That always makes me chuckle. US healthcare is by no means the best in the world. However, compared to the rest of the industrialised world it is eyewateringly expensive. Whereas the rest of the industrialised world has the same level of care from a public system (no matter how many scare stories produced, just as many can be found for the US system), the US has a private system, with the only difference to the consumer being the net cost.

The second is the stuff about how it restricts "freedom." Yep, it restricts peoples freedom to chose if they want health insurance or not. Such a difficult decision for everyone to make, I mean, we all know half the public will chose the first and half the other.

[Lamuella]

A Lone Stranger, on Jun 11 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

I wasn't actually joking. If someone else can make the same point but better, then why should I make the post?

so what about circumstances where someone asks a question you can't answer, and you run off and start another thread instead? How do you categorize that?

(note that's an impersonal "you", not you in particular)

[Kenadian_2006]

A Lone Stranger, on Jun 11 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

I don't always agree with either of the two listed, but sometimes they do sometimes post better than I can. (I have major issues in trying to form my thoughts into words, which is why some of my arguments don't come out sounding that great.)

And besides, I try not to be conservative. I try to be more liberal in the original sense: Look at both sides of the argument and choose which side is better. (Not to be confused with today's liberals that choose the politically correct side.)

That's a nice way of looking at things. Please, for the love of all that is holy, never become like Baz. Stay a good, intelligent and respectable guy.

[Bazeilles]

Kenadian_2006, on Jun 11 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

That's a nice way of looking at things. Please, for the love of all that is holy, never become like Baz. Stay a good, intelligent and respectable guy.

Are you implying that I am bad, dumb, and worthy of disrespect?

[Kenadian_2006]

Bazeilles, on Jun 11 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

Are you implying that I am bad, dumb, and worthy of disrespect?

I'm implying you are predictable. You start a thread about Obama, throw in some insults about leftists. Rinse and repeat. Everything you post in turns into a flame war between you and someone who would be called a leftist by you. That, is not debating worthy of being called intelligent or being respected.

I honestly want to respect you, I want to see good conservatives. But so far you haven't shown that, you've been half as bad as some of the worst leftists (actual leftists) we've had (to explain, we had one revolutionary commie re-rolled troll that said it was a good that one poster's family died at the hands of Mao. I somehow don't think you'd ever say something like that.). Come on Baz.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 11 June 2009 - 03:39 PM

[Bazeilles]

Kenadian_2006, on Jun 11 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

I'm implying you are predictable.

Oh really? Is that so? You said that ALS shouldn't become like me - he should be "good," "intelligent," and "respectable." It sounds to me like you are implying that I am bad, stupid, and worthy of disrespect...

Quote

I honestly want to respect you, I want to see good conservatives.

I honestly don't believe you.

[Kenadian_2006]

Bazeilles, on Jun 11 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Oh really? Is that so? You said that ALS shouldn't become like me - he should be "good," "intelligent," and "respectable." It sounds to me like you are implying that I am bad, stupid, and worthy of disrespect...


I honestly don't believe you.

The way behave is not intelligently engaging in debate or worthy of respect, obviously I wouldn't want him to become like that.

Meh, believe what you want.

I'll stop pestering you now, as it really isn't appropriate.

[Doc Taco]

But the fact remains that Doctors in the USA make $$$$ compared to their colleugeus oversees. At the end of the day the AMA can spin it however they want but really they are just worried about losing out on some of that dough.

[Andrew425]

I think Canadian doctors tried something like that back in the 50's

Didn't work out well for them

[Lackistan]

I remember when doctors became doctors to help people, not become rich.

Oh wait, that's most Canadian Doctors. My bad.