Duh, of course the AMA is going to come out against it. They are troglodytes. You can keep up your narrative all you like Gruss and try to paint my position as other than it is. The AMA doesn't like the public option because it stands to push for more care in a primary care visit context and less in a specialist referral context. And the specialists are who make the big money.
But if you want cost savings, insurance is still the low hanging fruit. There are going to have to be other reforms as well, no doubt. Changing the way insurance works, however, is the fastest, easiest way to take a significant chunk out of operating expenses in the medical field. You may not like that, but it is the way it is. For instance, a recent Weill Cornell Medical College study found that a third of the money received by primary care physicians pays for interactions between a doctors practice and patients health plans. That is massively inefficient and does nothing to improve patient outcome. The study in question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514160950.htm There's lots to be done in health care reform. We have to look at insurance, reimbursement rates, medical care overuse, preventative vs emergency care, technology standards...all sorts of things. Insurance, in my opinion, just happens to be the best and easiest place to start because it has the least impact on actual patient outcome. Oh and for what its worth, I'm focusing primarily on ambulatory care. I know that hospital expenditures represent a large chunk of our health care spending in the US (around 30% as I recall) but I am not as familiar with in-hospital care. Ideally we'd have far less hospital care if we improved primary care, but I'm sure there is plenty that needs to be done with reform in the hospital area as well. Judah On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: > > Judah - how's this for a fact: number of doctors that aren't gaming > the system: 0. > > Cause it MUST be those evil insurers ... after all they pay the bills > doctors charge and, wait, what? Costs are driven by doctors?? > Nooooooo ... > > Apparently these AMA docs are looking to get paid a bit more than a smile. > > ------------------------ > Just days before President Barack Obama is set to address the American > Medical Association to pitch its members on his vision for health care > reform, the 250,000-member physician group announced it would oppose a > major component of that effort. > > On Wednesday night, the New York Times reported that AMA was "letting > Congress know" that it would resist a public plan for health insurance > coverage. > > Despite a lofty reputation and purported commitment to universal > coverage, AMA has fought almost every major effort at health care > reform of the past 70 years. The group's reputation on this matter is > so notorious that historians pinpoint it with creating the ominous > sounding phrase "socialized medicine" in the early decades of the > 1900s. > > "The AMA used it to mean any kind of proposal that involved an > increased role for the government in the health care system," Jonathan > Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North > Carolina, told NPR in a 2007 interview. "They also used it to mean > things in the private system that they didn't like. So, at one point, > HMOs were a form of socialized medicine." > > Indeed, the role played by AMA throughout health care reform battles > past has often been primarily as the defender of the status quo. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/american-medical-associat_n_214132.html > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298299 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
