Yesterday the American Medical Association endorsed Obama’s health care reform plan in an open letter to the President and Congress on behalf of “America’s physicians and their patients.” Urging Congress to agree on its health care concerns, the AMA makes a list of suggestions including:
• No longer allow private insurers to deny patients for preexisting conditions
• Universal health coverage
• Incentives for preventative measures
• “Implement medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine” is another way of saying protection from malpractice lawsuits."
• “Repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that will trigger steep cuts and threaten seniors’ access to care."
An article posted by David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times on this letter discusses the AMA’s last two point in more critical terms. Kirkpatrick argues that the AMA has strong intentions of protecting the salaries of doctors and ensuring the safety of their positions. Topics such as malpractice protection has become controversial across party lines with Republicans in support of it and Democrats against it with their partners in the trial-lawyers’ lobby.
Why is this endorsement different from any other lobby group? As the New York Times states, “Polls show that voters trust the doctors on the subject of health care reform more than any other interest group, either party in Congress or the president himself.”
What kind of effect do you think the AMA’s endorsement will have on the opinions of the American people and the success of the health care bill? Consider the profit, security, and protection doctors are looking for in this bill.
This reminds me of our discussion of an elite model for argument. By coming from a credible source, the AMA's point of view is expected to be taken seriously. However, I think that this will get more consideration beyond the source because it outlines appeals for the interest of all, and not just the healthcare professionals.
ReplyDelete