To the Editor:
Re “Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Health Insurance Plan” (news article, June 11):
The American Medical Association has done it again, coming out on the wrong side of history regarding health care in the United States.
Whether whipping up fears of “socialized medicine” or more sophisticated expressions like “government control of health care,” the A.M.A. has opposed every progressive change in health care financing, including Medicare, which we now take for granted.
But most doctors do not belong to the A.M.A., and the A.M.A. does not speak for many of us who believe that the United States should join all other Western countries in providing universal health care.
Jay V. Solnick
Davis, Calif., June 11, 2009
The writer, a medical doctor, is a professor in the departments of medicine and microbiology and immunology, University of California, Davis.
•
To the Editor:
The rationale of the American Medical Association in opposing a public option in the Obama health reform plan is that a public option will increase government spending and, by decreasing private insurance penetration, decrease “choice” (though since people will have the choice to select the public option that is not a rigorously logical argument).
The true rationale is the fear of decreased reimbursement as the government gains more control of the health care economy.
This lobbying by the A.M.A. goes back many decades; the association fought all prior attempts at universal coverage and was also dead-set against Medicare.
As a doctor, I am disappointed but not surprised. The A.M.A. has always been a trade association first and a force for quality and access a distant second.
Robert Weisberger
Richmond, Va., June 11, 2009
•
To the Editor:
You report that the American Medical Association said it “does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs.”
Well, what is the best way?
As an uninsured 25-year-old, recently laid off from one of two part-time jobs, I would like to know exactly how the A.M.A. proposes that I get health insurance.
It is despicable to see an organization of doctors oppose the creation of affordable health coverage without proposing an alternative.
Clearly, the private market has got its moral priorities mixed up, and a public system is the only way forward. Health care is a human right.
Lee Gargagliano
Chicago, June 11, 2009
•
To the Editor:
The private insurance infrastructure drains nearly a third of health care resources into operational costs, advertising, executive compensation, profits and huge bureaucracies designed to deny health care to the sick.
What the United States really needs is a fully public insurance system, not just a public option.
This would lower overall costs, provide patients the option to see any doctor, and liberate doctors from the constant hassles of dealing with insurance companies.
In a public insurance system, the American Medical Association would have an important role in advocating for adequate reimbursements for doctors.
The A.M.A. has said it won’t even support a public insurance option in health care reform. That’s an example of why most physicians don’t belong to the A.M.A., and why I don’t. The A.M.A. does not speak for me.
Paul Quick
San Francisco, June 11, 2009
•
To the Editor:
I read your article with interest. As a young physician, I decided not to join the American Medical Association as a personal protest against its consistent opposition to meaningful health care reform that does not meet the parochial interests of physicians.
The A.M.A. just gave me a reason to regret having never joined the organization: now I cannot resign in disgust.
Richard Gomberg
Newton, Mass., June 11, 2009
•
Continued>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/l12health.html?hpw
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
