AMA backtracks from opposition to public health option? Not really

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times reported this morning that the A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan No, really? The AMA has opposed any and all reforms to America's health care system since Presidents Roosevelt and Truman proposed a national heath care system. The AMA, with its campaign spokesperson Ronald Reagan, was in the vanguard of opposing the creation of Medicare. The AMA opposing health care reforms is neither new or news.

But wait… What is news is what happened later in the day. The AMA issued a statement backtracking from its reported opposition. If true (and the AMA is never to be trusted) this is news. Obama Reasserts Support For Public Plan While AMA Backtracks On Opposition:

"Make no mistake: health reform that covers the uninsured is AMA's top priority this year," a clarifying statement from the group read. "Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care coverage.

"Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians."

OK, I take it back. The AMA has shown its hand. It knows that it cannot defeat health care reform this year, so it is going with its fall back position: it will support the weakest (and least effective) reforms possible and later claim to have supported health care reform.

Nice try, but sorry guys. We've all seen this game before.