AMA ENDORSES GOVERNMENT PLAN

Prior to Obama speaking to the AMA, I said in a comment here at TAB (here). The AMA letter to Rangel here.

MORE HERE AND HERE.

My comment in June 10, 2009: Scooped!

Keep a close watch on the AMA. The "bones" the government could throw at them--subsidized malpractice insurance, limits on lawsuits--could sway them. They have a weak leader at the AMA. I saw this, told a couple physicians and they laughed at the AMA. It was a little distressing. Yes, they lobby and donate lots of cash, but the government can easily screw the docs because of Medicare fees. They may have to eat their words at some point. Someone or some liberal group got pissed off in the 80s when docs were really making money. Well, procedures got better, and the skillset was raised. The better the doctor, the more he can get paid. Excellence in a field, a top doc. They demand certain fees--and should get them. Frankly, I'd rather see the specialist who drives a Maserati, than the one who drives a Plymouth. Kind of like the attorney who has a Porsche GT Turbo than the one driving a Hugo. Who's more successful--and don't give me that "frugal" crap. Great docs and attorneys and any anyone else who makes money does reward themselves with "toys". I digress from the original point--but keep a sharp on on the AMA.

# posted by Riddlemethis : 11:31 AM

I was right. The AMA has a weak leader and they are now bowing to Obama and his thugs.

There is nothing good about this. It is a power grab!

I wonder when the monies will be dispersed and what the actual "bones" were that the AMA are now gnawing on.

UPDATE: CBO: THE PLAN WILL COST TRILLIONS AND NOT SAVE THE NATION ONE PENNY ON OVERALL HEALTH CARE COSTS:

Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

"On the contrary," Elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."