shempmcgurk wrote: > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> shempmcgurk wrote: >> >>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> 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. >> > > Yes! > > This monopoly is the DIRECT RESULT of government intervention. And > that's why we need a free market in health care in the U.S. No it isn't.
