The Ama Opposes Obama's Health Care

[SUMG]

But what do they know.....they're just doctors. I'd much rather have my life in the hands of community organizers and bureaucrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

[FirefightnRick]

“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.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

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.

Not sure I agree with this last qoute, how would that work?

Rick

[keith]

Not sure I agree with this last qoute, how would that work?

Rick

I think it is basically saying that some people among the uninsured do not have insurance not because they cannot afford it, they do not have insurance because the *choose* not to have it. I imagine it would be something similar to the way you are required, by law in some states (all?), to carry auto insurance. That should have done away with the need for uninisured motorist insurance, but the insurance companies still peddle that.

Keith