Prometheus 6

I now proceed to point out the absurdities in the A.M.A.'s comments to the Senate Finance Committee.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.”

I believe the provision of health care through the private markets, as they are currently, is the very definition of the problem.

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.

Is your intelligence feeling insulted yet? They assert that adding another choice reduces choice.

And let's say the private insurers won't compete with affordable prices for complete coverage. Would not their failure be a market reaction?

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.”

"Likely"? Why? Whose costs?

The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.”

Doctors refuse new patients now when they reach their capacity. This is just stupid.

“In addition,” the A.M.A. said, “federal programs traditionally have never required physician or other provider participation, but rather such participation has been on a voluntary basis.”

The A.M.A., however, has no problem with insurance companies mandates...as long as they get paid.

The tradition argument holds no water when the need is to change traditional practices.