Why is the AMA so fervently against government sponsored insurance and healthcare?

Factual Questions
81

Up thread, someone stipulated that pretty much Doctors cloak their affluence in altruism. I heavily disagree with that. There really isn’t a limit to those that will wrap themselves in altruism to protect themselves.

If our system works so good, why are there entire states with out Obstetricians? Doctors are getting hammered on both sides by insurance, once in their office from their clients insurance, and again for their malpractice. My father in law was an Obstetrician. He had not had a malpractice claim in 11 years. In one year, his insurance increased $60,000. My obstetrician left practice 2 weeks after my daughter was born and is no longer practicing Obstetrics, he is now in a medical weight loss office. Interestingly, he was my father in laws Chief Resident.

We are losing critical need doctors because insurance is so out of hand. If the AMA wants to get their gruff up, they need to stop looking at me and start looking at these insurance companies.

How many of you have doctors that are in a single practice? I bet virtually none of you. They can’t afford it any more and, I believe, that in order to qualify to supply care for certain health plans, they can’t be a single practice. Not to mention the vast amount of paper work involved in processing the insurance claims.

I’ve suffered weekly from severe headaches my entire life. Every few years, when I have insurance, I’ll try to get it figured out. I’ve had EEG’s, EKG’s, CAT scans, seen neurologists, been told everything. I recently went to a doctor that speculates that I have a minor spinal cord injury that is causing it. I might add, my first visit with that doctor was the longest visit I had had with any doctor other than my obstetrician. He paid attention. He took time. Not many docs do that these days. He’s also a small town doctor.

Want job security? Be a nurse/CNA/etc. 95% of jobs in my town that are listed in the paper are medical. And the town next over, and the town over from that.

What we have isn’t working. How many of you would choose the health insurance you have? Or do you take what is offered? Are you a diabetic that has been classified as “preexisting”?

I know my last employer, when I asked if my pregnancy would be covered due to a snafu on their part told me “it is illegal to consider pregnancy a preexisting condition.” Which pretty much told me IF they could have, they would have. Therefore, I was covered.

Are we so callous a nation that we don’t think that basic health care should be a luxury? Really? If you really think so, please visit an emergency room some time. Watch an infant come in. Tell me if that child should live or die based on whether or not the parent has health insurance.

82

Just an opinion here-but as a solo primary doctor I’d welcome a single payer system. My salary (which is nowhere near what is quoted above ) would probably rise significantly. I aspire to make a 6-figure salary someday. Last year I did make slightly more than my medical assistants. According to a recent article in the AMA news, the average doctor spends 70 thousand dollars yearly to deal with insurance companies. I don’t know who thinks that we somehow have a say in contracting with insurance companies; the typical contracting process consists of “Here is what we pay-take it or leave it”. If you want to participate you take it. Every week I see new patients whose doctors have changed to “boutique medicine”. To make any money you have to spend no more than 15 minutes per patient.

However, if a single payer system were to pay only on patients seen, then you would still have the problem of the fastest, less thorough doctors getting the highest pay, and the ones choosing to see the older, more complicated patients getting much less.

ETA: the other benefit of a single-payer system is not having to deal with the collections from the insurance companies. I would be so happy to never again get a .01 check as interest payment on a delayed payment. Talk about inefficiency. I average at least one check for less than .10 monthly, which the insurance company spends $.44 to mail to me.

83

That’s not really the fault of the insurance companies, though. That’s the fault of the civil tort system - malpractice insurance is so expensive because fighting malpractice claims is becoming increasingly expensive.

It’s worst of all here in Florida, where doctors in several specialties are deserting wholesale because they can’t afford to insure themselves anymore.

84

Malpractice suits are not just made up. When a doctor or hospital screw up, they can ruin a persons life or kill them. That is not the stuff of small claims court. When they screw up a kid, someone has to see that the kid is taken care of for a lifetime.

85

Not all malpractice suits are made up. However, it’s not the cost of paying out on the legitimate ones that is the problem, it’s the cost of defending the frivolous ones.

FYI, the site you linked to is an advertisement for malpractice attorneys.

86

Obstetrics is a hot bed for malpractices. If something goes wrong, it is far easier to blame the doctor. Just defending a case is expensive, I would imagine. Really Not All That Bright, both doctors I referred to practiced in Florida.

And I’ll call bullshit on blaming the tort system. Unless you also want to blame Home Depot for hurricane damage. It is an easy excuse.

87

I forgot you live here. Defending any malpractice claim is expensive, but obstetrics is especially expensive because people (understandably) lose their minds over dead babies when they might just grin and bear up over a sore shoulder.

I don’t understand the Home Depot analogy. If doctors are leaving the state because they can’t afford the insurance, it is by definition too expensive - and in a market system, somebody will offer it at a reasonable price if it’s economically feasible to do so.

88

I’m not aware that the US requires direct-to-consumer advertising…so this “expense” is willingly born by the pharmaceutical companies, no?

89

Presumably- which further reinforces my point, that our high drug costs have little or nothing to do with other people’s low drug costs.

90

I don’t live there anymore! I escaped!

I think trying to pin the blame on the tort system is a cop out. To me, it would be like blaming Home Depot for hurricanes. It makes as much sense. I would venture that insurance companies spend more money NOT paying out that whatever they end up shelling out in lawsuits. Even if they hired exclusive off-shore talent, the hoops you have to go through, the forms you have to fill out, the appeals you have to file, have to end up costing insurance companies FAR more than litigation. Toss in a few Senators, a few Representatives, heck, I think large lawsuit settlements are just a drop in their bucket.

Don’t forget, now insurance companies are done state by state so they don’t risk everything when something happens and they can just declare that state bankrupt and the parent company is as right as rain.

What I paid out in various insurance premiums in Florida last year would have paid for a years tuition at the most exclusive private school in Tampa.

The AMA needs to get their head out of insurance companies rectums and pay attention.

91

You might think so, but it isn’t true. The way insurers deal with litigated claims is fairly simple. If it’s cheaper to settle, they’ll settle. If it isn’t, they won’t. Let’s say your policy limit is $100,000*; they offer you $50,000 to settle. You refuse. They offer $75,000. You refuse. They offer $100,000. You refuse.

Given the policy limit of $100,000, their potential exposure if they go to trial is only $100,000 plus a bit - 20% in penalties and interest and maybe another 10% in attorney’s fees**. There’s no incentive for them to settle for any more than the policy limit; after all, if they go to trial, they have a chance to win***. If they settle for $100k+, they automatically lose. Thus, going to trial in such cases is cheaper.

*That’s obviously the low end for health insurance. I’m just using it as an example.
**That’s not including punitive damages, of course, but if the insurer is acting in bad faith then obviously all bets are off.
***It’s safe to assume that they have a chance of winning; if the facts are such that they don’t, then they’d simply pay out in the first place 99.9% of the time and there’d be no litigation, or at least no attorney’s fee exposure.