Why are many well-regarded groups, like the American Medical Association, rejecting a proposed public health-care option?
Government, especially via Medicare and Medicaid, has historically tried to control costs by broadly cutting payments. New rules inspired by certain abuses were often so broad that even good utilization was financially penalized. This leaves doctors very wary of government involvement. President Obama has faced criticism because his plan might give individuals with severe medical problems little to no coverage. How might these patients be better served? We need to face the fact that a large number of people need a small bit of care and a small number of people need a large amount of care. That is how insurance works. But that makes people hear “socialism” and reject such coverage. Better measurements—partly from electronic records—will confront us with the truth of what we spend, and this might create a political opening. What do you predict will ultimately come of Obama’s health-care reform and push for universal health care? With luck, the whole country will look like Massachusetts.
Related Questions
- The American Medical Association likes to call it CAM, or Complimentary Alternative Medicine. I guess that Chiropractors fall into that same category?
- Why are many well-regarded groups, like the American Medical Association, rejecting a proposed public health-care option?
- Where can American Medical Association (AMA) coding guidelines be obtained?
