 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 Career colleges and the paper of record face off.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
|
   |
|
|
July 2, 2009
AN AMA CHANGE OF HEART? NOT REALLY.... A few weeks ago, the American Medical Association said it's open to exploring reform options, just so long a public option is not part of the larger effort. This didn't come as a surprise -- the AMA has "fought almost every major effort at health care reform of the past 70 years." It's why it raised a few eyebrows yesterday when the incoming president of the AMA, in an interview with CNN, seemed to be staking out a new position. CNN ran an item on the segment with a headline that read, "AMA president: group open to government-funded healthcare."
The AMA president went on to express support for universal coverage and new efficiency measures such as electronic record-keeping. Rohack called 2009 "the year we need to have affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans." But it was that reference to a "public system" that stood out. Is the AMA shifting its position? Not really. Brian Beutler explained that Rohack is actually endorsing "a system of managed competition that provides members of Congress and other federal employees a choice of heavily regulated private insurance plans. In the FEHBP, the government is not the insurance provider as it would be in the case of a public option -- and that's a substantial difference." Advocates of real reform are going to need plenty of allies. Don't expect the AMA to be one of them. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)Comments
Senate Finance Committee - Democrats Sen Max Baucus D MT Phone: 202-224-2651 | Fax: 202-224-0515 Republicans CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA Phone: 202-224-3744 | Fax: 202-224-6020 Senate Health and Human Services Committee - Democrats Ted Kennedy Massachusetts, Chairman Phone: 202-224-4543 | Fax: 202-224-2417 Republicans House Ways and Means Committee - Democrats Charles B. Rangel Chairman, New York Phone: 202-225-4365 | Fax: 202-225-0816 Republicans Dave Camp Ranking Member, Michigan Phone: 202-225-3561 | Fax: 202-225-9679 Just to point out that the AMA represents about 19% of MDs. It represents all docs much the same way the Federalis's Society represents all lawyers. It just has a catchier name. It's unlikely that either right-leaning group is going to sign-on to any Democratic initiative. Posted by: J Bean on July 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKAnyone surprised that our paid for media never presents the information contained in J Bean's comment above? It's also sad to me that we are among a small group of folks who are able and interested in watching ALL OF THE TOWN HALL meetings that President Obama is providing...and ACTUALLY LISTENING TO ALL HE SAYS...too many people flip on their favorite pundits to tell them what he said/meant and then decide where they stand...the DUMBING DOWN OF THE PUBLIC is going very well...MORE MICHAEL JACKSON PLEASE!!!! Posted by: Dancer on July 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINKDr. J. James Rohack needs to be uninsured for a year. Then let's talk to that schmuck and others of his ilk about a Public Option. That Chuck Grassley guy needs the same. These people are not human. Come on Chuck. What gives? Ever had an upper respiratory with no chance of seing a doctor because of money? Eh? You are inhuman. Nausating... Posted by: stevio on July 2, 2009 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINKDr Rohack is a very busy man. He, recently, had the time to write a letter to the editor of the Oregonian complaining about an article which had been critical of the AMA's history of attempting to link universal health care with communism and socialism and painting any proponents for such with very tarred black and red brushes. Posted by: berttheclock on July 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINKWell, regardless of the AMA's credibility, would it be a bad thing if everyone had the same health care/insurance as Congress? I hear a lot of people demanding that in response to a lot of Senators and congressmen, but I guess you're saying that it wouldn't be enough for most people. And before anyone jumps on me, I want a real public option to keep the insurance industry honest, but I'm just wondering if the model that congress uses could actually work for everyone--if its a heavily regulated system that doesn't allow insurers to screw people over like they do so often now. Posted by: Allan Snyder on July 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINKAllan raises a good point--we've been hearing for years about how good the Federal plan is. Is this only because it has so many members that the actuarial numbers make it so? What I haven't seen discussed is whether there will be any regional rating involved in these bills. In other words will we still be stuck with the same horrible arrangement where a small group pays more than a large group because the risk is supposedly spread over a smaller number of payees. This makes little sense in a universal plan and would be one reason why a public option would be vastly more efficient than what we have now. Posted by: carwinrpc on July 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINKSo there is no confusion, the AMA is committed to health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage. Over the last few years we have invested more than $15 million in our Voice for the Uninsured campaign to call attention to the uninsured crisis and lay the groundwork for health reform that gets all Americans covered. The term “public plan” has so many different meanings that it confuses more than informs the debate. As the nation’s largest physician organization, we have made it perfectly clear that we welcome and will thoughtfully consider all proposals consistent with the principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. The average AMA member is an older, male, surgical specialist from the south. Not surprisingly, the AMA reflects that demographic without being an overtly political organization. It's also worth noting that the AMA does not control medical education, medical licensing, medical practices of any sort or access to medical visas for immigration. Posted by: J Bean on July 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKAMERICAS NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Its official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World. STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America. And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health. Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All). Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy. In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans dont even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES! If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! Hes doing a brilliant job. THIS IS THE BIG ONE! THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL! Join the fight. Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD! God Bless You Jacksmith WORKING CLASS Posted by: jacksmith on July 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINKI'm not so sure this is a bad option. The key to being able to negotiate with insurance companies is to have a BIG, BIIIGGG pool of "patients" that the insurers want access to. No one has a bigger pool than the federal government, and as a consequence, they get the best deal by far from the insurers. If anyone could buy into the FEHBP, that pool would get even larger, giving the government even more clout. Imagine, if you will, that every self-employed person in the country, every individual with no employer insurance, and every business in the country could buy into that plan. And that every insurer wanting access to those patients would have to agree, no denial for "pre-existing conditions." I can see a future not to far away where everyone is in that plan, and the federal government is indeed negotiating with the insurers and Big Pharma. Kick an insurer out, and they'd be done. If this is what it takes, I say go for it. I would sign up for sure. Posted by: Cal Gal on July 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINKJust for grins, I compared what it would cost for similar plans from HMO if I paid as an individual v. if I paid the TOTAL premium (employer + employee) under the FEHBP. The private plan is a $25 copay plan, the Fed plan (Standard, i.e. the lowest cost one) is a $30 copay plan. You pay that every time you go to the doctor. Each charges $10 per lab visit. Prescription drugs, 30 day supply: Feds: $15 for generic and $35 for brand name. Individual plan: $10 for generic and $35 for brand name. (As a transplant recipient, who cannot get private health care insurance, the full price for just one of my drugs is $1,200 per month.)
Hospitalization: $500 per VISIT feds, $200 per DAY individual. Out of pocket maximum (does not include prescription drugs) after which there is no copay at all: Fed plan - $2,000; individual plan - $2,500. So they are not the same, but they are close. Total monthly premium under the Fed plan: $183.58 Total monthly premium under the individual plan, for a 40 year old woman: $358. And this rate increases as you age. No mention of age under the FEHBP. So I think you see right there the bargaining power of the federal government. Posted by: Cal Gal on July 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
