When President Obama visited Chicago recently to discuss healthcare reform with the American Medical Assn., his reception was polite but not entirely friendly. After weeks of behind-the-scenes courting by the White House, the AMA had just come out against a public health insurance plan -- something the administration hopes will be included in healthcare reform.
It's easy to understand why elected officials court the AMA. For decades, the powerful ...
Full Story »
Posted by Kristin Gorski
See All Reviews »
The authors raise an important point -- that the AMA isn't the only professional voice in the health care debate -- but don't cite much factual evidence and, frankly, deliver their message in a pretty smug tone. Not very informative and less effective.
As AMA membership declines, these growing organizations arguably represent the future of the medical profession. Their views are more in touch with the American public, which polls indicate overwhelmingly supports providing citizens with the option to purchase public coverage.
They are only just beginning to receive invitations to meetings in Washington. The media don’t generally write about them.
(13 answers)
Why are these organizations more in touch? Are we left to assume that because they’re smaller, more local they better represent mainstream American views on health care?