The AMA supported Brother O’s take over of health care to reap the benefits of the monopoly that the federal government created for it. Under ObamaCare, the AMA will administer a medical coding system that every health-care professional and hospital must use to get paid for their services.
Under the new coding system the AMA will take-in from $70–$100 million annually, which makes it less of an association that looks out for doctors’ interests and more of a special-interest group indebted to Brother O and the Democrat Congress.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has put doctors on notice who opposed ObamaCare.
“[P]hysicians should conduct political communications with sensitivity to patients’ vulnerability and desire for privacy.”—AMA issued statement
Yet doctors who oppose ObamaCare have not relented. Passage of this bill has stirred in them long dormant political emotions. Doctors across the country are educating their patients about how ObamaCare will limit their freedom to make their own health-care decisions.—Hal Scherz
Does the AMA still uphold the principle that it’s always medically ethical to tell patients the truth or are medical ethics a moot point when it comes to ObamaCare?
I.M. Kane
Why the AMA Wants to Muzzle Your Doctor
It is always ethical to tell patients the truth, which is what doctors are doing by educating them about ObamaCare.
The American Medical Association (AMA) is putting the doctors of America on notice. A major cheerleader for ObamaCare, the organization is now trying to silence doctors who oppose it. It is time the American people understood what the AMA is really all about.
Last month, not long after a Florida urologist placed a sign in his door making it clear that patients who voted for President Obama were not welcome in his practice, the AMA issued the following statement: “[P]hysicians might reflect on how to properly balance their obligations as members of the medical profession with their rights as individual citizens who will be affected by reform. In particular, physicians may wonder whether it is appropriate to express political views to patients or their families.” The statement goes on to say that while the AMA “supports the right of physicians to free political speech and encourages them to exercise the full scope of their political rights . . . physicians should conduct political communications with sensitivity to patients’ vulnerability and desire for privacy.”
Many doctors interpreted this as an attempt—albeit with verbal parachutes attached—to keep them from sharing their opinions about health-care reform with their patients. This position is troubling on many levels.
The AMA was not only a major supporter of ObamaCare but also an accomplice in its passage. Without the support of the AMA it is quite possible that the health-care reform initiative would have failed. So why the effort to silence other doctors? The AMA is not only worried about protecting this misguided legislation, it is worried about protecting itself.
In the weeks since passage of this 2,700 page bill, more and more of its policy land-mines have exploded, including rising insurance premiums and admissions of inevitable rationing. Not surprisingly, an increasing number of physicians have expressed alarm over the impact that the legislation will have on their patients. This growing opposition makes the actions of the AMA, which represents only 17% of the doctors in the U.S., look very bad.
It is essential to understand the primary reason the AMA stands alongside President Obama on health-care reform. The organization wants to protect a monopoly that the federal government has created for it—a medical coding system administered by the AMA that every health-care professional and hospital must use if they wish to get paid for the services they provide. This monopoly generates income of $70 million to $100 million annually for the AMA. That makes the AMA less an association looking out for doctors and more a special-interest group beholden to Congress and the White House.
This isn’t the first time the AMA has acted in its own selfish interests and not the interests of the medical profession. The last time it had a chance to take a public stand against government intrusion into health care was the HillaryCare fight. The AMA disappeared during this debate, leaving others to fight for doctors and patients.
Yet doctors who oppose ObamaCare have not relented. Passage of this bill has stirred in them long dormant political emotions. Doctors across the country are educating their patients about how ObamaCare will limit their freedom to make their own health-care decisions. There are 925,000 doctors in America and the average doctor has at least 2,000 patients, with many of us already asking our patients if we can take two minutes to discuss this bill with them. This terrifies Congress and the White House.
Did someone in Washington give the AMA the order to muzzle outspoken doctors? Could it be Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman, the Malibu coastline representative who calls businesses to appear before his Energy and Commerce Subcommittee if in abiding by securities laws they reveal the hidden costs of ObamaCare? Perhaps it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has staked her speakership on this bill?
The irony is that in supporting ObamaCare and trying to silence doctors the AMA has forgotten its own mission statement and ethical code:
“[T]o help doctors help patients by uniting physicians nationwide to work on the most important professional and public health issues.” It is always medically ethical to tell patients the truth, which is what doctors are now doing by educating them about ObamaCare.
My own group, Docs4PatientCare, which to date represents more than 3,000 doctors, intends to continue providing materials and information to doctors who wish to educate and inform their patients about ObamaCare. We will also continue to challenge ObamaCare advocates whenever they show America the ugly face of intolerance and attempt to silence dissent.
Inasmuch as the AMA is allowed to operate a monopoly under the watchful eye of the federal government, I would expect the GOP Doctors Caucus in the House of Representatives to demand an investigation and request that the AMA fully disclose whether it was pressured by Congressional leadership, the White House or the Department of Health and Human Services to engage in intimidation tactics.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
It’s inaccurate to say that Obamacare gave the AMA a monopoly on medical coding. In 1983, the Reagan Administration adopted the AMA codes for reporting physician services in Medicare. Adopting AMA medical codes has proven to be an excellent value for America’s taxpayers, who don’t pay a dime to use the codes in the Medicare and Medicaid systems.
Wild charges and misiformation regarding the AMA medical codes were first generated in 2001 by the GOP and insurers following the AMA’s support of a patient’s bill of rights. Since then, the claims have been discounted as political payback against the AMA. Nine years later the political retribution contines, but this time the GOP and insurers are pushing the misinformation through front groups disguised as consumer advocates.
Of course ObamaCare will prove to be problematic and create (most likely, like technological advances also) just as many problems as it may intend to address. It’s the nature of problems for which we have no pragmatic solutions, and in the eyes of many means that we really do not have a health care issue / problem.
However, to the extent that either side of the aisle has an interest in improving the health of citizens through any means possible, it is necessary to recognize two very fundamental issues:
1) The politicalization of the issue, or utilization of an ideological approach, will not result in an effective solution, because most human beings are not sufficiently self-motivated to pursue optimal health. It’s just not going to happen.
2) Because of our (minimum of) two party governmental system, ANY bill generated will be ineffective because it is a moderate, piecemeal, compromised approach to health. Imagine giving kids a vaccine which has been diluted, watered down, or adulterated with all sorts of ingredients not essential to attacking the disease.
Why do ANYTHING if it is not going to be effective? Why waste the time and the money pursuing goals through ineffective means?
This issue will NEVER be resolved by either side as long as people have freedom of choice. It’s the nature of human beings.
As Dirty Harry once said, “A man (or humankind) has to know his (or its) limitations.