The AMA Comes Around
| Thu Jul. 16, 2009 11:28 AM PDT
Here's a pleasant surprise: the AMA has decided to endorse healthcare reform. And not just any healthcare reform. Jon Cohn reports that they've endorsed the House Tri-Committee plan, one of the better proposals out there:
This is unexpected. Or, at least, I wasn't expecting it. Recent signals from the AMA suggested they were reluctant to embrace reform, in no small part because they believed a public insurance option would underpay them. But the AMA letter contains no caveats. It is a straightforward endorsement.
And that makes it a pretty big deal. No, the AMA is not as powerful, nor as representative of the medical community, as it once was. But an unqualified endorsement for the most liberal plan out there has large symbolic value, given the role AMA played in killing health care reform for most of the 20th Century.
I'm not sure what all is going on behind the scenes (Jon thinks this might be a quid pro quo for higher Medicare reimbursements), but it's good news. Max Baucus, please take note.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
At least for many doctors --
Submitted by urban legend on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 11:47 AM PDT.
At least for many doctors -- probably at least the primary care people -- I'm happy to see higher rates if they have a legitimate beef about what Medicare is paying them now. There are more fundamental ways to lower overall costs than stiffing the doctors. I've always thought that having the providers on the side of good reform would be a huge political plus, and they should be because they will benefit immensely by knowing everyone is insured before they start diagnosis and treatment.
The plan calls for $400M in
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 12:59 PM PDT.
The plan calls for $400M in savings from Medicare. The only way they can achieve that goals is to hack reimbursement rates. So wake up.
And if you don't think that 40 million American's getting free healthcare isn't going to drive usage through the roof then you've learned nothing from Welfare Reform.
It is unbelievable to me that this is moving forward without any of the tough questions being asked by the media. And so it is bound to be a disaster. Just like Medicare with its 35,000,000,000,000 in unfunded future obligations.
we want more usage
Submitted by ericf on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
We want usage to increase. We want more people getting checkups and seeing doctors when problems start. It's a fraction of the cost of emergency rooms, which right now is the only place uninsured people can be sure they'll be seen. Many unnecessary costs --- and much avoidable suffering, but maybe that's just a minor point to some --- come about because uninsured people often have to let problems worsen to the point where they become emergencies before they get seen.
So yes, usage should increase, except in emergency rooms where it should plunge, and we'll all save money. Lives too, if that matters.
http://www.ravensblog.net
When something is 'free' and
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 1:38 PM PDT.
When something is 'free' and without consequence it is used to excessively and is wasted. That was the point welfare reform.
Incidentally, where are you moving these people to? From the emergency to where? The doctors office? When was the last time you made an appointment with a specialist? Good luck getting in before a three month wait.
So what we are doing is adding 40 million people to the system, who will now have little accountability for cost, will use the system excessively into a system already burdened and in short supply. That will drive cost through the roof. Sorry but economic behavior always rules not matter how much the politicians deny it.
I'll all in favor of healthcare for all. But not this plan. Not now, not ever. This plan destroys our healthcare system.
And eventually America.
Doesn't sound like it
Submitted by ericf on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 1:53 PM PDT.
"I'll all in favor of healthcare for all."
What, unless it involves actually letting people see a doctor? Anyway, are you sure about the three month wait for a specialist, because we're always being told our waits are short while people in countries with socialized medicine have to wait. That's not true? Wow!
http://www.ravensblog.net
Released today: "The
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 1:10 PM PDT.
Released today:
"The healthcare overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday"
Nancy Pelosi responded by saying that she was confident they could 'wring more cost' out of the system.
where's Charlie Brown?
Submitted by RZ (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 2:43 PM PDT.
Didn't AMA play Lucy with the football in 1994?
It's worth reflecting...
Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 3:48 PM PDT.
...that Howard Dean and the AMA are now both on board for the same bill.
AMA and doctors
Submitted by Paul Camp (not verified) on Thu Jul. 16, 2009 8:27 PM PDT.
Maybe in the political world this is a big deal, but my wife's ex is a doctor. My stepson is a doctor. Through them, I know lots of doctors. Every single one of them ridicules the AMA and laughs at the idea of being a member. In fact, roughly 15% of practicing physicians are members.
Free means abused?!
Submitted by Trippp on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 8:00 AM PDT.
"When something is 'free' and without consequence it is used to excessively and is wasted."
Bwahahahahaha.
Now you are simply being willfully ignorant. My supermarket started giving away fresh parsley for free and for some reason there wasn't a huge line at the door. Driving home I noticed the weeds growing at the side of the road, free and without consequence and yet somehow I missed the stampede of people wasting them.
Listen up, oh simpleton, even if medical care is available with no fee, people still have to figure out what to do with the kids, find transportation to the clinic, find parking, schedule around the appointment, describe personal details to a clerk, and then possibly undergo an uncomfortable exam and listen to a lecture about how they should lose weight and quit smoking.
I suspect very few people will over-consume that experience.
Hey, since I am over 50 my medical insurance completely covered a colonoscopy for me, with no co-payment or deductible at all. It was completely 'free.'
By your 'logic' I should be getting one every couple days, eh?
Hey, stupid, try not to be stupid, you embarrass yourself.
Tripp
You know Tripp, you have a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 8:19 AM PDT.
You know Tripp, you have a horrible habit of name calling anyone you disagrees with you. Maybe you ought to have a good close look at yourself in the mirror and try to figure out why all the angst. Did you find a job yet? Employment is a wonderful for the occupying the mind.
I won't bother to refute your thesis. There's not point to it. Clearly you have no clue about economic behavior. The fact is that you just like to spout your ridiculous, mean spirited opinions; nothing, not even statistical facts will change your mind. So go ahead and spout your misguide opinion like those weeds you found along the highway. But if you'd open your eyes I'm sure you'd realize that there is no demand for either since both are completely worthless.
D.
