AMA Shoots Self in Foot

So, the AMA (American Medical Association) is taking the schoking position against a public option in the health care reform debate, using the favored tactic of fear-mongering as their reasoning.

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.”

Well, costs have been skyrocketing for years under the free market driven health care system that has been poorly implemented. One only has to go back to the MMA of 2003 to see that when Medicare was no longer able to bargain for the lowest prices for seniors in the program, that costs skyrocketed, with insurers lining their pockets and seniors no longer taking their necessary medicines or seeing their doctors on a regular basis.

Not to mention the increasing number of doctors that are opting out of the insurance-driven health care system in this country, and treating patients directly. No longer taking insurance has significantly lowered doctors overhead, just in the employees that don’t have to be hired to specifically deal with the insurance companies.

Then we have the tremendous cost under our current legalized extortion scam promoted by the insurance companies. You know, the US spending the most health care dollars per person and getting a horrible return for those dollars.

But, seriously, folks, one must ask why is the AMA and the insurance industry so afraid of a public option?

So back to the arguments, such as they are.  (1) A public plan wouldn’t drive out private insurers unless it turns out that private insurers are actually less efficient than the post office.  In which case they’d deserve it.  (2) Nor would a public plan restrict choice — unless the AMA’s members deliberately tried to sabotage it by refusing to participate.  (3) And there would only be a surge in signups if the public plan turned out to be a better deal, which would likely mean lower overall costs even if a greater percentage of those costs was paid for out of taxes.

Which leads me to a recent blog post I read on how a specific insurer has increased the salary of their CEO’s, which would not be possible if they weren’t already bilking each and every policy holder and rationing their care. If there were a public option, these CEO’s would not be getting such cushy salaries, either.

The fact of the matter is, the public overwhelmingly wants a single-payer system because the free market system has failed. It has failed because health care is NOT a business. People’s health plays a very significant part in driving the economy. The AMA would do well to get on board with the majority of the people, instead of whining.