As the American Medical Association is holding its annual meeting in Chicago this week, the AMA has disclosed that it lost 12,000 members last year, reportedly due, in large part, to opposition by their members to the new healthcare law.
The main focus of debate at the annual meeting is whether the AMA will withdraw its support for the individual mandate, a key component of the law. This debate on the individual mandate highlights how misguided and irrelevant the AMA has become.
The AMA was used by the Obama administration to garner public support for the law. The public’s perception is that all doctors belong to the AMA, and thereby, that the AMA speaks for all doctors.
Thus, if the AMA supports ObamaCare, it must be good. In fact, at the time of passage of ObamaCare, only 17% of physicians in the United States belonged to the AMA. That percentage is dropping as members leave. Further, one third of its members are in training (eg residents and students), and a substantial portion of the remainder are either retired or in academic medicine.
Truth be told, the AMA is hardly representative of practicing physicians.
Why then did the AMA support ObamaCare? The answer is that the federal government created a monopoly for the AMA, giving it exclusive rights to publish medical billing codes.
Every physician and hospital in the country must use these billing codes. This monopoly accounts for an annual income for the AMA of between 70 and 100 million dollars. That exceeds the income from membership fees.
To whom is the AMA’s allegiance -- practicing physicians or Washington politicians?
Now, after the AMA has been used by the White House for the passage of ObamaCare, its delegates are debating withdrawing support for the individual mandate. Members supporting the individual mandate sight the importance of everyone having health insurance.
No one disputes the desirability of everyone having health insurance. The question is, how do we get there?
Should bureaucrats in Washington mandate that we have health insurance, and dictate what the terms should be? Or should we pursue policies that will make health insurance more affordable, and then hold individuals responsible?
The question regarding the individual mandate is a matter of Constitutional law. The opinions of the AMA in that regard are not germane.