Kasz216 said:
This has changed since June? “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage andlower costs. 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.” 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.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html I mean if you've got a later source... then feel free to show it. But as of June they saw a public option as exploding healthcare costs. |
The new president of the American Medical Association, which represents the interests of the nation's doctors, said Wednesday the group is open to a government-funded health insurance option for people without coverage.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/01/AMA.health.care.reform/
I just googled that, so you should look for better sources if you want to know their position in detail. AMA sent a brochure supporting the public option with the JAMA they send to my roommate.
