June 11, 2009

AMA Opposes Obama’s Public Insurance Plan

Filed under: Health Care,MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Rose @ 3:29 pm

I’m shocked.  Oh, not that the AMA opposes this disastrous plan, but that the NY Times actually reported it (albeit mixed with gratuitous digs and counter-arguments that they never seem to afford like-minded views).

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.

…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.

…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.”

…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.”

Oh c’mon AMA, look at how successful the government has been at managing Amtrak, Social Security, Medicare and let’s not forget Education

Share

6 Comments

  1. The federal gov. has their hands far too deep in health care already, please no more!

    And bravo to the health care industry for finally speaking up. The AMA has been far too acquiescent to the demorats for far too long, nice to see them grow a pair.

    And notice how the NYT makes sure to point out that AHIP is a “lobby.” Because we all know lobbyists for liberal causes are all noble and selfless while lobbyists for conservative causes (especially if they involve or are a part of the dreaded multinational corporations) are all greedy and evil.

    Comment by zf — June 11, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

  2. The federal gov. has their hands far too deep in health care already, please no more!

    And bravo to the health care industry for finally speaking up. The AMA has been far too acquiescent to the demorats for far too long, nice to see them grow a pair.

    And notice how the NYT makes sure to point out that AHIP is a “lobby.” Because we all know lobbyists for liberal causes are all noble and selfless while lobbyists for conservative causes (especially if they involve or are a part of the dreaded multinational corporations) are all greedy and evil.
    P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!

    Comment by zf — June 12, 2009 @ 6:11 am

  3. Of course we could believe Obama’s farce that he can insure 47 million people by cutting Medicare. Now I want someone to explain to me how you can cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and keep the same level of service when in fact the reimbursements are at or below cost to the medical providers? This outright flim-flam to much such claims. The only way to cut costs in Medicare is to change the nursing home and ALF admissions policy. That’s where the bulk of costs are located.

    President Barack Obama is seeking to help pay for his health care plan by sharply reducing the government’s medical spending, mainly by trimming payments to prescription drugmakers, hospitals and other care providers…

    …In his weekly Internet and radio address Saturday, Obama proposed cutting $313 billion from the programs over 10 years. That’s in addition to the $635 billion “down payment” in tax increases and spending cuts in the health care system that he announced earlier…

    He would cut $106 billion from payments that help hospitals treat uninsured people because his plan would cover nearly every American.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hITfom2rwHxvzXH9fMrN4pOUGrqQD98PNLJ00

    Notice the cut in prescription drugs which are completely paid for under Part D by premiums on seniors! And the kicker he would save $106 billion by NOT paying for the uninsured!!!! So the entire justification for controlling the health care industry is to save the GOVERNMENT $106 Billion by an accounting GIMMICK!!!!!!!!! Who would pay for the uninsured? YOU and ME via higher insurance premiums like RomneyCare! Ok, aren’t we already paying for the unreimbursed costs via our taxes (Medicaid) and higher premiums??? This entire thing is a FARCE!!!

    …The problem for liberal Democrats is ideology. The Medicare Part D program is based on competition among private insurance plans, whereas they are determined to model health reform on government-run, price-controlled Medicare Parts A and B or on Massachusetts’ individual-mandate plan.

    But, as the latest Medicare trustees report warned, Medicare’s hospital insurance plan (Part A) is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2017. And Part B, which pays doctor bills, is experiencing “steep cost increases” for taxpayers and will demand “unusually large premium increases” for seniors who can afford to pay.

    Meanwhile, Massachusetts’ heavily regulated plan, while covering 355,000 previously uninsured residents, is costing much more than expected – 32 percent more in its first year and an anticipated 20 percent more this year…

    …Obama wrote Congress that “health reform must not add to our deficits over the next 10 years,” though most estimates for covering the nation’s 47 million uninsured come in at $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

    Eventually, making the health system more efficient – with digital medical records and chronic disease management – may cut the costs. But in the meantime, Democrats are looking to Medicare provider cuts and taxing employer-provided benefits as answers…

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/11/_medicare_drug_plan_ought_to_be_model_for_health_reform_96949.html

    Comment by dscott — June 13, 2009 @ 9:50 am

  4. Now we are up to $400 billion that is supposed to be cut from Medicare in addition to $600 billion in new taxes over 10 years. Now who is going to believe that the wealthy are spending $600 billion???? This is just as a nonsensical as believing raising taxes on the rich is going to balance the federal budget. This isn’t just simple ignorance based on liberal tropes, this is just plain deception.

    House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update2)

    Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid,…

    …Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg

    Comment by dscott — June 13, 2009 @ 11:14 am

  5. The finished product: http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/06/16/Healthcare-Reform-Flim-Flam/

    Comment by dscott — June 15, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

  6. BTW, the idea employers will be fined for not providing a certain level of health insurance means that in order to avoid the extra expenses in a period of economic problems will be to lay off all possible workers, not add any if it could be helped. If part time employees are exempt from the healthcare mandate then the move would be to minimize full timers and maximize part timers. Both would cause dislocations in the market place.

    Comment by dscott — June 15, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.