A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com:

"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."

I am OK with opposition to making participation mandatory if one accepts Medicare for the obvious reason is that it is coercive, but mainly, because the plan should be able to stand on its own and thrive. If it does not, then something is wrong in the way it was set up, and it should fail.

So I believe we MUST have a good public option, but it must be good in all senses: promoting better use of resources, reducing administrative waste, continuing Medicare's freedom to choose providers and so on.

Can't wait for the AMA meeting outcome...

***UPDATE***
Check out the letters in response which, perhaps led to the AMA press release:

AMA COMMITTED TO HEALTH REFORM THIS YEAR
Make no mistake: health reform that covers the uninsured is AMA’s top priority this year. Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care coverage.
“Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.”

Thanks to my peeps at Doctors for America for the heads up!

Sphere: Related Content