AMA: Reform Bill--Yes; Public Option--Not So Much
An article appearing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today, entitled “14-foot-tall vampire illustrates view of one physician’s group,” included the following statement: “It [The American Medical Association] initially opposed the public option but recently came out in support of a House proposal that included a public-private option.” This statement is not entirely true.
According to Mike Lynch, Vice President of External Communications at the AMA, whom I spoke with today, the AMA has never opposed the public option. “The AMA has no official position on the public option,” according to Mr. Lynch. In addition, he maintained that this has been the AMA’s position on the public option throughout the debate. According to Lynch, The AMA has not changed its position recently as asserted by the author of the Star Tribune article, Chen May Yee.
The AMA does, however, support HR3200, the bill that includes the public option, but Mr. Lynch stated that support for the overall bill does not constitute an endorsement of all of its provisions, including the one in question here. While speaking for himself, Mr. Lynch stated that the AMA ambivalence about the public option is that it “is not necessarily the best way to ensure public access.”
The AMA’s lack of a position on the public option strikes me as a rather finely parsed response to a critical aspect of the health care debate. It reflects pure politics in that it is likely the association is attempting to prevent a schism within its ranks. In so doing, it panders to its conservative base. The American public deserves to know where the AMA stands on this crucial aspect of HR3200.
* * *
Note: The original title of this post, to which a few of the comments below were addressed, was "AMA does not support the public option." The "new and improved" header is an attempt to respond to those comments.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lisa Barlow
Robert J. Elisberg
cindy capitani
Hells Bells
Greg Correll
Linda Shiue
Salon.com
Comments
Blackfon, not to pick, but I think the AMA represents less than a third of all doctors, and that figure includes medical students.
jane smithie redux
Yup. Most doctors would love to be able to spend time on preventative care and still earn a decent wage. One in a million is a frankenstein who only cares about volume, and doesn't see real people suffering every day. But still, how many more times do I have to hear that doctors only care about 'public health' before I get physically ill.
There is a profit motive there too. Do I want to make $200K or $300K? Schedule a few extra lab tests every day! It's not the doctors' fault. It's the way the system is right now.
One thing that definitely needs to change: Malpractice lawsuits. A mistake, however horrible, shouldn't require a doctor to carry $$$millions in insurance. That drives up medical costs, and only benefits the insurance execs with corner offices.
A friend of mine with a daughter practicing family medicine in Ohio recently related a story to me:
(Somewhat quoted from a FIRST assessment) This guys came into my office, grotesquely obese, obviously suffering, and told me he had been to 5 other doctors. And that if I hurt him, he would sue my ass off.
I told him to get the f.u.c.k out. (End quote)
Dave told me his daughter pays tens of thousands of dollars every year for malpractice insurance to protect against idiots like that guy.
At some point the reason for medical costs has to be thrown back to the patients who have been taught there is a magical pill for every ill.
The AMA would support a public option if it included comprehensive payments for preventive medicine. At least enough to pay off those loans from being in school for 8 years. There are examples in the US now, of doctors operating clinics where they see patients for 15-30 minutes, instead of 5 minutes, but only earn 20% less.
Why? Precisely because cadillac health plans for the rich do nothing to protect the less fortunate and underprivileged.
Are the rich more vulnerable or less vulnerable to a pandemic if the less privileged do not have access to health resources? The less access the poor or middle class has to health care, the less likely they will be able to get early attention to treat a pandemic disease and stem its spread. Though the un-insured and under-insured may be hit early, still the unchecked progress of disease puts all of us - including the rich - at much greater risk. Even the rich will be a significantly greater risk when the poor do not have health care, as compared to when the poor do have access to health care. Disease does not recognize class boundaries.
Another consideration for the wealthy: how are your antibiotics working? Are they still effective? Will they continue to be effective? It is now well documented both in this country and in less developed countries, that if a patient needs a course of antibiotics to treat an infection, and if money is an issue, the patient will be likely to pay for the first dose but not for further doses, especially if he/she notices some improvement. This is exactly the prescription for creating “super bugs” - those infections that become resistent to drug treatment. The first dose will kill the weaker specimens of the bug, but leave “stronger” specimens. If the patient doesn't take the full course, thinking perhaps that they don't have the money and they're feeling better anyway, then the stronger bugs remain and propagate. This stronger bug spreads to another victim, and if repeated, eventually the strain becomes resistant to the antibiotic. A super bug.
So by limiting or denying medication and health care resources to the disadvantaged (due to cost, misinformation, or other reasons), we are helping create super bugs. Once superbugs become prevalent, are the wealthy immune? No, not a chance. Even the wealthy will be laid low.
So unless you are going to literally seal yourselves off from the rest of society, what can you do to keep healthy? You can best protect yourself and your family by guaranteeing that everyone has access to quality medical care, as a Public Option would. Think about it.
Pawed!