President Obama's health care plans may have hit a little snag: turns out that doctors don't like a key provision:
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.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors' group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America's largest physician organization.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. [...]
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."
This is interesting. Plenty of people on the right have been saying this sort of thing, of course, but the A.M.A. is coming at this from a different perspective than the usual partisan one. I've heard doctors express frustration before at the tangled rules and complex pay schedules they have to deal with every time a patient uses a government insurance program like Medicare or Medicaid; perhaps they are worried about the effects that a "...surge in public plan participation..." would have on their ability to maintain today's standards of care.
President Obama is to give a speech to A.M.A. members on Monday in Chicago. It will be worth paying attention, to see if he addresses this concern expressed by the A.M.A. about public health insurance.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Erin, I find it rather disturbing that you, a self-proclaimed orthodox Catholic, seem to be rather disconnected from the Church's social justice teachings. Universal healthcare is very much required under that teaching. That doesn't mean you have to sign on to Obama's plans, or any other particular proposal, but it should mean that your posts on this subject should acknowledge (and quite loudly and definitely) that we MUST provide healthcare to all our citizenry.
Are you sure you're not eating fron the rightside buffet table of the same cafeteria where the pro-Choice Catholics regularly dine from the leftside table? I apologize if I am misreading you, but I have been bothered by this phenomenon on the part of American (politically) conservative Catholics. Folks like Novak and Fr. Neuhaus were always ready to brandish Papal teachings like clubs on abortion, homosexuality and the like. But when it came to many other public issues they seem not to give single hoot about the teachings and traditions of Rome whenever this conflicts with the Gospel according to the GOP-- or of Mammon.
Observer, In response to your query about cost and quality, it is difficult to argue that the US spends twice as much on health care as other countries because statist systems are quite adept at hiding costs. As far as controlling costs, US health care inflation is basically the same as other OECD nations.
What is the measure of quality? Is it life expectancy or infant mortality rates? The US is quite respectible on these counts, but below many industrialezed nations. Almost all of this, though, is explained by other factors such as lifestyle. But on illnesses where health care makes a big difference, such as cancer, US survival rates are significantly higher than in Europe.
And Americans have a far shorter wait for health services than in other nations. For example, less than 5% of American patients wait more than four months for surgery, compared to 26% of Canadians and 36% of Britons.
As far as the specious argument about being pro-life and health care, it is precisely the point of those of us who oppose statist health care that it will reduce the quality of care. The only way to seriously reduce the cost of health care is by rationing services. That is not good news for the sick and infirm.
Re: Mark my words, once a "public option" health "insurance" plan is put in place, it will be subsidized to the point of driving private health insurance plans out of business.
Public schools are subsidized to the point that no one pays a dime of tuition, yet private schools survive. Public tranpsortation is very cheap to use due to subsidies, yet ost of us still spend thousands of dollars to buy and maintain our own cars. Why? Because goods and services in the marketplace compete not just on cost but on quality. Public tranportation, for example, tends to be of very poor quality so anyone able to afford a car, and capable of driving one, has a car instead. so the real issue would be the quality of the public healthcare plan. If it's a total mess only those who really can't afford private insurance (or find a job with private coverage) will use it-- the public tranpsortation case. But if it's of decent quality then it will indeed absorb most peoplem though even then priuvate coverage will remain for those with special needs or preferrencesd (the public school situation). But no where in the economy where a public/private mix exists has the public option driven the private one out of existence.
Re: Let individuals bear the costs of their own care
Well, that would reduce the surplus population certainly. Simple fact is, most people not named Bill Gates or Warren Buffett can't afford healthcare. And that is what you mean when you talk about demand dropping: people noit being able to use healthcare when they need it. As in cancer patients, accident victoms etc, dying in the streets, as in Calccultta and Port au Prince. Don't ever tell us you are pro-Life-- I will call you a liar to your face on that one.
We need sustainable healthcare services. Presently, many state, county and city governments and corporations with unionized labor forces have as much as one third of their labor cost going to employee and retiree healthcare benefits and pensions. This same ratio applies to the pension plan itself where instead of re-investing all of the stock dividends, a large portion is diverted to retiree health benefits. With the stock market crash wiping out assets, in a few years, most of these pension plans will not have the assets needed to pay retiree pensions much less their health benefits. They’re as bad off as General Motors. And, like GM, it’s the increasing costs of the health benefits that are bankrupting the system. These governments and corporations may try to raise revenues or sell bonds to fill the deficits in their pension plans, but, revenues are down and bonds sales are weak. They’re waiting for an Obama bail out. But, “bail outs” are expensive and the federal government can’t just raise taxes, print more money or pay higher bond rates without damaging the economy. Whether it is intentional or not, a consequence of the Obama health plan will be to move the employees and retirees of these “troubled” governments and corporations into one basic health plan. The government is making available a basic health plan for all citizens and employers will be expected to pay for their employees on this “public” health plan. These employers or pension plans would have to pay only the minimum premiums for their employees and retirees. Any employee or retiree who wanted to stay with their private healthcare insurance would have to pay “out-of-pocket” for that part of their private insurance costs that exceeded the cost of the government’s plan. (This could cost 10% or more of their salary or pension.) What employer would pass up a deal like this? Paying for only the government’s basic plan will likely become standard practice for all employers. Eventually, all employers and pension plans, the healthy and well as the troubled, will fund only the basic government healthcare plan. And, only those people with high income will be able to afford the deluxe private insurance plans. Private healthcare insurance would be sustainable if the government paid for new medical technologies, cut regulatory and paper work costs and limited punitive lawsuits against providers. It’s time to choose.
The real overwhelming cost of health care in this country is the result of malpractice suits, and the resulting malpractice insurance coverage, s well as CYA medical testing that doctors have to order to protect themselves from suits. Capping malpractice payouts, extending arbitration as a lawsuit substitute for most cases and simply allowing doctors to recommend rather than order frivolous CYA tests and requiring subscribers to get their insurance to authorize them or pay themselves for these unneeded tests would go a long way toward cutting the long term costs of private health care insurance and the overhead cost to provide care from doctors and hospitals.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.