The AMA's New Position on a Public Option

Earlier this month, I wrote a post entitled The Health Care Oligopoly and the Real Weight of the AMA that discussed the lack of competition in our current, supposedly "market-driven" health insurance industry, as well as the shrinking constituency of the American Medical Association (AMA). In it, I quoted the AMA's stated position with regard to a public health insurance option as part of ongoing reform which was, at the time, as follows:

The AMA 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. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.

Later that day, I received a comment from someone at the American Medical Association declaring that I had completely misstated the organization's position, despite the fact that, in describing that position, I had used the AMA's very own words:

Your post is simply wrong regarding the AMA’s position on health-system reform. The AMA is committed to health reform this year that provides all Americans with affordable, high-quality health coverage. Over the last few years we have invested more than $15 million in our Voice for the Uninsured campaign to call attention to the uninsured crisis and lay the groundwork for health reform that gets all Americans covered.

The term “public plan” has so many different meanings that it confuses more than informs the debate. As the nation’s largest physician organization, we have made it perfectly clear that we welcome and will thoughtfully consider all proposals consistent with the principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.

Recently, the White House released a statement saying: "the AMA agrees with the President that enacting reform that drives down costs and expands choice and coverage is an urgent priority. We look forward to working with them as the process moves forward."

Confronted with what I'm reasonably certain was the work of a lazy summer intern in the AMA's public relations department, my low tolerance for this slipshod and deceitful feedback sort of, well... came out:

Wait, let me get this straight: Your contention is that, in directly quoting a statement from the American Medical Association, it was I who got it wrong? Are you seriously trying to make the case that I was incorrect in citing this statement from the AMA?:

"The AMA 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. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."

Your comment is little more than one big strawman, rife with the tried and true technique of addressing something I never actually said. For example, you quoted a White House statement that reads:

"... the AMA agrees with the President that enacting reform that drives down costs and expands choice and coverage is an urgent priority. We look forward to working with them as the process moves forward."

This substanceless dreck clearly falls into the category of "Uh-huh. And?" and in no way addresses the contents of my post. Further, you may have "made it clear" that you will entertain all sorts of proposals, but per my quote above from YOUR ORGANIZATION, you have also made it clear you oppose a public option.

I work hard to maintain a civil tone and have intelligent and calm conversation on this site, but holy shit, your post is absolutely insulting in its craven, mealy-mouthed dishonesty. Whoever you are, feel free to engage with substance in a manner that actually speaks to what I wrote. Alternatively, if your sole intent is to cut and paste corporate PR statements into my comments section, go piss up a rope.

Anyway, as mildly entertaining as all that was, I am pleased to announce that, as of July 16th, the American Medical Association has endorsed the health reform bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives, and which includes a public option! For the record, this was NOT the case at the time of my post - the accuracy of which I maintain - but I think it is only fair to make mention of the AMA's new position, and I applaud the organization's decision.

Who knows? Perhaps they saw the comments below by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who just flat-out gets it: