TPMDC

AMA Endorses Senate Health Care Bill

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

AMA President Elect Cecil Wilson

Read More

AMA, Health Care, Senate

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The American Medical Association today endorsed the Senate health care reform bill.

The organization's president-elect, Cecil Wilson, spoke at a press conference with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats.

"After close and careful review, the AMA is pleased to announce its support for passage of the amended health system reform bill," Wilson said.

He said the AMA supports several "key benefits" in the bill, including "improvements in choice and access" and the elimination of denials for pre-existing conditions.

"America has the best health care in the world, if you can get it. But for far too many people, access to care is out of reach because they lack insurance," he said. "And this is just not acceptable to physicians."

He said the AMA has worked closely with senators over the past few weeks. And, because "there is still work to do," he said the organization will continue to work with the Senate to address issues of concern.

One of those issues is the matter of increasing Medicare payments to doctors, which he said Reid and Sen. Max Baucus promised to address early next year.

Comments (32) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

December 21, 2009 1:51 PM   

Like I said: No Health Insurance Company Left Behind.

Health insurers surge after key vote

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gwEgaGWL8WrtWwVKR3fAy5b9ovDgD9CNRL084

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:05 PM    in reply to wbgonne

So now you're using the stock market as a predictor of reality.

Good luck with that argument.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:25 PM    in reply to Dorn76

Thanks for the luck, however, I am not "using the stock market as a predictor of reality." I am reporting how the Oligarchists are responding to the legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:48 PM    in reply to wbgonne

5% increase in long term capitalization? Some of these stock buys could be by progressives who now plan to rely on insurance company stocks as a retirement plan. If this is really a never ending feast at the government trough why not get aboard?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:52 PM    in reply to philogratis

Democrats should buy stock in health insurance companies, says the Democrat defending the health care reform bill known as No Health Insurance Co Left Behind. Sage advice. Now if I only had some extra money . . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:41 PM    in reply to wbgonne

My point is that stock price increases can be driven by enthusiasm (see Bubble, Subprime), and stock markets often register short term fluctuations after newsworthy events. This shows that some people think health insurance profits will increase, but after a 5 percent jump in the morning it's been pretty flat. A good earnings report, an FDA approval, or rumors of a hostile takeover can cause much more drastic jumps. You are reading too much into a minor correction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:00 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Health insurers would have surged WITH the public option as well. 30 million more people are going to get insured. Health insurance companies will get a piece of the pie no matter how you slice it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:34 PM    in reply to blmack

With the weak public option, anyway. The Medicare rate linked broad public option has been dead for months, so that was priced into the market a long time ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 1:56 PM   

They've drunk the Kool-Aid too. Teh world iz coming 2 an end!!11!!!!eleven!!!11!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:06 PM   

President-elect Cecil Wilson also said:

We are pleased that the manager’s amendment addresses several issues of concern to AMA. It increases payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons in underserved areas while no longer cutting payments to other physicians. It eliminates the tax on physician services for cosmetic surgery and drops the proposed physician enrollment fee for Medicare.

what were their concerns before:

But the medical association objected to some provisions, including a new tax on “elective cosmetic medical procedures” and creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board that could “mandate payment cuts for physicians.”

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:20 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Yes, the cosmetic surgery lobby passed the buck to the tanning-salon folks. In case it wasn't already clear who and what ($) is running the show.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:26 PM    in reply to wbgonne

the capitulation was left out of the post. I just wanted to make sure his words were heard.

BTW, thanks for your link. I found this interesting:

On Monday, a Credit Suisse analyst boosted his price targets on seven insurance providers.

"The ultimate passage of health care reform, expected early next year, will serve as a positive catalyst for the managed care universe," said Gregory Nersessian in a note to investors.

He raised his price targets on Aetna Inc., Amerigroup Corp., Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., Molina Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Wellcare Health Plans Inc. He also boosted his profit estimates for Health Net Inc.


I wonder what they see that so many are willfully missing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:34 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

To me, it is a perfect illustration of how the Dems are losing with a winning hand. Who owns and uses tanning salons? Regular people. Regular people shafted again for the UltraRich plastic surgeons. Not that there is a populist movement afoot or anything. I swear: if the Dems were any dumber they'd forget how to breathe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to wbgonne

It was a bad strategy in my opinion. I think Robert Kuttner's (of The American Prospect) words address it perfectly, from his comments to Bill Moyers recently:

Part of it was we need to do whatever it takes to get a bill. Never mind whether it's a really good bill, let's get a bill passed so we can claim that we solved health insurance. Secondly, let's get the drug industry and the insurance industry either supporting us or not actively opposing us. So that there was some skirmishing around the details, but the deal going in was that the administration, drug companies, insurance companies are on the same team. Now, that's one way to get legislation, it's not a way to transform the health system. Once the White House made this deal with the insurance companies, the public option was never going to be anything more than a fig leaf. And over the summer and the fall, it got whittled down, whittled down, whittled down to almost nothing and now it's really nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:48 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Yes, as I've mentioned previously it appears that Rahm Emanuel was determined to fight the last war and, gosh darn it, he wasn't about to let Big Business jump up at the last minute to oppose the health care effort. So the White House just gave everything away up front so there would be no surprises later. Not the strategy I would have chosen in this post Bush-Dark-Age, Wall Street bailout and populism-rising environment. But, hey, those guys are a lot smarter than I am.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:56 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Not the strategy I would have chosen in this post Bush-Dark-Age, Wall Street bailout and populism-rising environment.

word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 4:17 PM    in reply to wbgonne

I can't believe anyone is upset that tanning beds are being taxed. Those freaking things should be OUTLAWED!!! They increase your risk of skin cancer by 75%!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32187497/

What next? You're going to freak out about the alcohol and tobacco tax because it's just a few farmers and moonshiners trying to earn an honest living!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 4:24 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Agreed. And their advertisements are complete lies. It's amazing how they can tout health benefits when the evidence is so stacked against them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 5:39 PM    in reply to FreeRider

You, my friend, are a moron.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 6:44 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Says the moron who is upset that tanning beds aka cancer clusters are going to be taxed!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 7:59 PM    in reply to wbgonne

So, you own a tanning salon? Otherwise why the skip the meaningful dialog and go straight to name-calling. Do tanning beds cause cancer or not? Hmmmm, let's check the American Cancer Society, shall we? Looks like it increases melanoma by 75% and also is now linked to melanoma of the eye. Good stuff, that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 10:00 PM    in reply to matyra

You would be wrong about tanning beds causing Melanoma. Tanning beds have been associated with Basil Cell Carcinoma and have never been linked to Melanoma. Many studies make some broad conclusion like "tanning beds cause cancer" without defining what kind of cancer. The Basil Cell form of cancer is rarely fatal and very curable. None-the-less tanning beds do dry out your skin and accelerate aging. Melanoma is more related to deep burns which is much more likely at the beach than with a tanning salon. The MSNBC article was about a study of studies was/is poorly documented. I saw the reference to Melanoma and teens but can make no conclusions without background material.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:40 PM   

Hmmm.. I thought that was aimed straight at Boehner. I'm sure Obama demanded that one. He's snickering about it as Air Force One wings towards Hawaii.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:44 PM   

This stock surge thing is a little overblown. If this bill is really a firehose of hundreds of billions of dollars to the healthcos then their stock should go up more than 5%. These stocks are at a 52 week high. Remember last December, when the stock markets were in free fall because people thought maybe the world economy was collapsing? Insurance stocks just recovered to that point, but so has the rest of the market.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 2:50 PM    in reply to philogratis

Oh, c'mon. You don't really believe that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Health care stocks were much higher back in 2007, before the recession. This is not only true of health care stocks, but stocks in general. It doesn't really matter whether I believe it or not. It's a fact.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:07 PM   

Thirty million Americans without life insurance will be covered. That even this was done in the face of so many failures over the years and against so much opposition is worthy of praise. Single payer, public option, Medicaid expansion are all things I think would have helped make this much better reform, but they were not our primary goal. I wish the cost-containment measures were stronger as well, but a number of credible economists say that, at minimum growth of premiums will slow, and several see a real reduction in the premiums that middle and lower income folks will pay.

Is it perfect? Far from it. But this is the price of coalition governing, even more than the moral and political, if legal, corruption that drives our current campaign finance system.

The simple fact is, whether right or better for "the people", there is not enough public support for the progressive solutions. Which by the way, are my preferred solutions. Then again, it took three bites of the apple to get federal Civil Rights legislation right.

I am certainly no fan, but I like the fact that the AMA is on board. Obama promised that he would reach out. In a sense, we have mainstreamed the idea that in the richest nation on earth every American should have health care. This is an important victory--We should be celebrating.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

December 21, 2009 3:09 PM   

What was the position of the AMA on previous revisions of the health care bill?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 3:26 PM    in reply to mcc

They endorsed the final house bill, but they hadn't graded the various proposals in the senate. So now they've endorsed both the house and the senate version.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

December 21, 2009 3:40 PM    in reply to philogratis

Thanks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 21, 2009 7:33 PM   

The AMA may have endorsed this because they didn't have Ronald Reagan around anymore to cut a record on the sinister evils of socialized medicine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 4:55 AM   

Yes, as I've mentioned previously it appears that Rahm Emanuel was determined to fight the last war and, gosh darn it, he wasn't about to let Big Business jump up at the last minute to oppose the health care effort. So the White House just gave everything away up front so there would be no surprises later. Not the strategy I would have chosen in this post Bush-Dark-Age, Wall Street bailout and populism-rising environment. But, hey, those guys are a lot smarter than I am.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on