AMA Opposes ObamaCare

ObamaCare has hit a pothole! The American Medical Association, the largest association of doctors in the country, have publicly opposed St. Barack's universal healthcare proposal. Don't get too excited, however, they're only worried that their own choices could be truncated - they still actively advocate restricting the rights of patients.

 [I]n comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. 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.”

 Hear that folks, a universal healthcare plan will restrict choices -- not broaden them. What's so interesting about this particular article is that it shows why some healthcare providers actually welcome government intervention -- for the sake of self-interest! The New York Times reporter rather drolly points out:

While not the political behemoth it once was, the association probably has more influence than any other group in the health care industry. Lawmakers seek its opinion and support whenever possible. It has repeatedly persuaded Congress to cancel or postpone cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, though it has not secured a “permanent fix.”

Careful doctors, push King Barack around too much and maybe you'll see fewer Medicare payment increases. That's the trouble with letting the government put a leash around your neck, you never really know when they'll give you a good yank. Wouldn't it simply be wiser if doctors had to worry about the concerns of patients, instead of having to lobby the government for income?

The last few paragraphs of the article contained the biggest stunner for me -- neither of these groups (Obama or the AMA) can be trusted:

The association agrees with Mr. Obama on some points. It says that individuals and families who can afford coverage should be required to obtain it.

Ah, I see! So, if you can afford a doctor's services, you shouldn't have a choice. That's rather self-serving, isn't it? So, to review, the AMA is ready to defend it's own right to have a choice -- but patients should not have that right. What doctors, financiers, and other industry leaders want is government subsidies, protections, etc. -- but they don't want their rights infringed upon. They want to socialize the inherent risk in their industries, and yet retain the 'private' earnings.

The Obama Administration must have the standard Faustian documents in PDF form.