Comments on: AMA President: Opposition to public plan is motivated by desire to ‘protect the health insurance industry.’

By: seslikent

seslikent — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:22:12 +0000

Thank you..

Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

By: cdwriteme

cdwriteme — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:50:00 +0000

I read an opinion piece by some physician that said the AMA only has like 20% of physicians who are members. If that’s true, they certainly aren’t representative of feelings of physcians across America.

Some physicians prefer the Hypocritic Oath as opposed to the Hippocratic Oath.

By: lvdragonlady

lvdragonlady — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:41:32 +0000

Of course the AMA is trying to block REAL health care reform. They will lose their ’source’ of money from the insurance companies if health care reform is passed. Just watch, the drug companies will be next.
It is time for America to get out from under these corporations. They are no better then some governments in third world countries.

By: Whenwillthisnightmareend

Whenwillthisnightmareend — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:22:01 +0000

Absolutely! Why should the GOP want to protect an industry that has no place in the market? We need to forge an industry that is relevant to the peoples needs, not those of the wealthy and politically connected.

By: curious

curious — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:27:32 +0000

Of course it is. How much in the way of campaign contributions do they get? Plenty. And to drag out this old saw, until there is true campaign finance reform we will never have a real democracy. The Congress and Senate will always be owned and operated by K Street. If you listen, you can hear the sound of the lobbyists slithering along the corridors of congress. Ssssssssss.

By: Rodeskawler

Rodeskawler — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:16:57 +0000

Doctors, in particular primary care doctors, have every reason to be concerned about inadequate reimbursement under a nationalized healthcare plan. In some states, Medicaid has either decreased or not changed their reimbursement over the last decade.

National Healthcare is necessary to save our economy, but we will not see anything close to this with corporate sympathizers like Obama and his Clintonite regime. If there is any goverment program produced with people like Emmanuel having anything to do with it, you can rest assured it will be very punitive and intentionally overbearing.

The bottom line is we will get a window dressing like the fake lobbyist reform NAFTA Nancy passed.

For America to get a real national healthcare program with their best interest at heart, we need real lobbyiost reform and campaign finance reform…bottom line.

By: sacopenapa

sacopenapa — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:29:10 +0000

Read ALTERNET today!!!!

This is of great and pressing importance. It is one thing which is missing in TP since ObaOba took office…

Shame: The ‘Anti-War’ Democrats Who Sold Out

ALTERNET

By: samayavajra

samayavajra — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:17:48 +0000

We need a public option that people are automatically enrolled in which covers basic healthcare needs. If someone wants private insurance, the gov’t should send the premium which is witheld from their paycheck to the chosen insurance company. Otherwise, the goal of universal healthcare will not happen. When people are low on money or want to purchase some desired luxury item, the things which are intangible are the first to go, like auto insurance. A HUGE percentage of drivers buy auto insurance just long enough to get their plates, then cancel or simply let the bill go unpaid. Health insurance will be exactly the same if we leave it to people to buy and pay for themselves. Of course, conservatives would hate the idea of doing that with auto liability coverage, until some working-poor or unemployed person hits them and they sue all they like, knowing no money will ever come out of it.

By: piltdown

piltdown — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:01:10 +0000

“I think the health insurance industry pays a lot of money to people who can protect them.”

Those campaign contributions are called BRIBES.

By: Robt

Robt — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:43:42 +0000

“Opposition to public plan is motivated by desire to ‘protect the health insurance industry.’”

Oh, He must of forgot, and profits…………………….

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:41:50 +0000

Definitely the health insurance industry would take a very big hit if we did this. But presently, the health insurance industry is leeching off of every other industry, causing all of them to add massive overhead and forcing labor disputes. That’s every industry in America being hurt by this system. I’m willing to lose one to save the rest.

JohnM Says:

Cut their pay and the best and the brightest may find other professions where they can get rich.

I’m starting to think these “best and brightest” are neither very good nor very bright. I’d like to cut it just enough so that evil scumbags can go back to Wall Street where they belong. Doctors should want to be doctors at least in part because they actually want to help other people.

But that’s besides the point, as insurance =/= doctors, and pharma =/= doctors.

JohnM Says:

It’s pretty much a general consensus that teachers are underpaid, but why is that?

Because of Republicans. They haven’t yet been eliminated from all elective offices, and therefore still cause trouble, such as slashing teacher pay and then demonizing them as “lazy government employees” whenever they ask for an increase.

By: kdgamergirl

kdgamergirl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:32:13 +0000

Thanks for explaining :)

By: Don of Cali

Don of Cali — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:51:26 +0000

Talk is cheap. Walk is the only thing that counts.

By: Realness

Realness — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:34:38 +0000

You are right teachers do have a great deal of responsibility and need to have a great deal of education and most of them work for public schools which dictate the salary structure. It’s pretty much a general consensus that teachers are underpaid, but why is that? Why don’t the best and brightest want to teach the second grade? Could compensation have anything to do with it?

Because compensation is abysmal for teachers, some of the most dedicated educators perhaps are there because they feel it is their calling, so it could be argued that many of the ‘best and brightest’ are already there, despite our own projections of Most money=best people.

but then again we would all agree that better compensation would attract more people to that area. It’s the limit of that thinking that’s the debate. I think El Bruce’s point of the tipping point (comment 16) is there. On one end we have under-compensation and its consequences, on the other we have over-compensation, and it would be ridiculous to deny those consequences all around us, as the AMA, insurance companies, and many doctors move to keep a very inefficient (and harmful to millions of Americans) for their own gain.

By: mary lacewing

mary lacewing — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:30:27 +0000

Although I think that doctors should be well paid I do not want to have for my doctor someone who went into the profession just to become rich!

By: RantingTommy

RantingTommy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:25:36 +0000

the right wing corporate controlled mainstream media wants people to think the government will be running health care

that is not what the plan is

the plan is to take the middleman out of the equation. insurance companies are an added expense that adds no value to health care

they are not proposing government run health care, they are proposing a large group policy and the discounts and cost savings that come along with it

By: Namtillaku

Namtillaku — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:24:19 +0000

RantingTommy Says:

single payer would help US corporations be more competitive, except, of course, the insurance corporations

Hopefully, you’re not taking me wrong. I’m 100% for single payer. You could find no happier person if they shut down every health insurance parasite out there.

By: BearCountry

BearCountry — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:23:27 +0000

kdgamergirl,
Single payer is like Medicare. There you have your choice of whatever doctor you want to visit for whatever need. You don’t have go through a clearinghouse to ask permission. The single payer, in Medicare it’s the Federal Gov, then pays a certain amount based on their standards. This amount is considered to cover some major portion of the cost; it could be 100% or less. In Medicare it is 80%. The patient is then only responsible for whatever is left, if anything. Presriptions are covered also. The insurance companies have rushed into the Medicare gap after the 80%. That is huge business in Florida.

The “public option” has not been defined enough yet except to say that it will not be single payer. Somehow only the truly indigent will get their premiums covered. Obama is hoping to get the insurance and doctor and pharma people to back him and then he will probably let them write the actual bill that he tries to get Congress to pass.

For a good comment on our healthcare costs, go to The Daily Howler . Scroll down about 1/2 way to ‘Zeno’s Universal Coverage.’

By: Realness

Realness — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:22:17 +0000

Hospitals and doctors do not get reimbursed as much for medicare as they do from private insurance so that means less money to the doctors.

As Medicare stands now, pre-reform, I don’t think that’s a good measuring stick for how a public option plan would (should?) shape up. There’s general agreement about Medicare’s unique stance amongst a private industry, vis a vis big pharma, new technology, unnecessary amounts of middlemen, etc.

Single payer (and maybe a well-drafted public plan) would most likely see a reduction in doctor’s salaries, but there is also general agreement by most leaders of medical organizations that there would be some squeeze by everyone, including doctors, but that is to be expected for the goal of covering as many people as possible. There is also general agreement that this squeeze would not be nearly as bad if we really streamlined the whole system- which the most efficient way is single payer or at least a strong public option.

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:21:25 +0000

I’d like to challenge every single member of Congress to go out and try to purchase a health care plan for themselves and their families at today’s prices.

I’ll bet there’d be some serious sticker shock going on.

Those schmucks have it way too easy. We’re paying for it, and they don’t want us to have the same coverage as they do.

GRRRRRRR!!!