shempmcgurk wrote: > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> shempmcgurk wrote: >> >>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The AMA is not a government agency. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were. >>> >>> But it is true, I believe, that much of their mandate IS as a >>> > result > >>> of federal law. >>> >>> >> Hardly. The AMA lobbies for these policies. The government does >> > not > >> come up with. The AMA mainly consists of a bunch of doctors who >> > got > >> their because daddy was a doctor and made sure that sonny or >> > daughter > >> got through medical not from skill but from help from daddy's >> connections just so they can have an easy life golfing and >> > occasionally > >> looking at a patient's blood panel and sticking their finger up the >> patients ass. Doctors who are truly interested in practicing >> > medicine > >> often find the AMA's exploits appalling. >> > > The following is from a much longer article found at > http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749 but I think you'll find > here that the AMA has quite a legislated mandate (here they talk > about legislated mandates by states; I believe there is also a > federal mandate as well): > > > Medical Regulation and the AMA > > Besides paying some of the highest prices for health care, we have > the dubious distinction of having the most heavily regulated > healthcare system in the world. In no other country on earth are > doctors and hospitals subjected to as many oversight and enforcement > agencies, bureaus and commissions. Rules, regulations, and laws are > duplicated, redundant, multiplied, magnified, and contradictory. Laws > and regulations covering doctors and hospitals plus all the other > parts of our healthcare system now account for over half of all the > words, sentences, and paragraphs in our entire body of law. > > If regulations could make a healthcare system work better, ours would > surely be perfect. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Even those who > believe that only government regulation can assure quality health > care should face this fact. More laws and regulations are not going > to fix our system. If we are truly concerned about the high cost of > health care, if we really desire greater safety and higher quality, > then we must undertake a dispassionate analysis of the current mess. > If we wish to begin effective treatment of our healthcare system, we > must first make an accurate diagnosis. > > To make the correct diagnosis in a complicated medical case it is > often helpful to have patients recount their first encounter with > their symptoms. So it is with understanding the conundrum we call our > healthcare system. > > We have to go very far back to the first meeting of what would become > the American Medical Association. This meeting was held in New York > City in 1846. Twenty-nine allopathic doctors (MDs) attended the > meeting. They wanted to establish a monopoly over health care in the > United States for those doctors that practiced higher quality > medicine, such as themselves. They felt there were too many different > kinds of doctors practicing too many questionable forms of medicine. > They wanted only doctors that conformed to their brand of medicine to > be allowed to practice. They wished to set up their association as a > medical elite and obtain a government-enforced monopoly over health > care in the United States. > > The following year the AMA was officially launched. Members' efforts > were at first slow to yield results. One of their first successes was > in getting the exclusive right to positions in the federal > government. Then, around 1870, the AMA began to find success at > setting up medical boards in each state. The rationale behind these > medical boards was twofold. > > First, it was assumed that only doctors knew enough about medicine to > be able to determine whether a physician was competent. And second, > it was felt that doctors accused of misconduct should not be > subjected to the public humiliation of an open trial. Typically the > AMA would team up with key lawmakers in a state and lobby for > legislation to "protect public safety." The idea was that incompetent > and unscrupulous doctors were doing great harm to healthcare > consumers. There was no proof of this, but it was their claim. > > A state consumer protection agency staffed by AMA members was > promoted. That is, a state board made up of AMA members would examine > applicants who wanted to practice medicine and only license those who > were, according to them, competent and morally fit. So each state in > turn passed a Medical Practice Act which created a board of medical > examiners with police powers to enforce their decisions. It was > critical to the AMA's long-range plans that states establish these > medical boards. I don't see how this proves your point but it surely proves mine. :-D
The line: "They wanted to establish a monopoly over health care in the United States" says a lot.
