> but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). My point is that they're not campaigning for them. Either directl

> but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). My point is that they're not campaigning for them. Either directly or indirectly. > The AMA is like many other trade organizations, in that it often acts as one of many lobbyists for industry interests. The AMA is not really a trade organization, because (a) only a small minority of doctors actually belong to it[0], and (b) they don't really consistently advocate for physicians' interests. Even the very article you link doesn't really implicate the AMA at the source (or even the enabler) of these restrictions: > Even if the AMA were to magically produce a few thousand more residency slots, it would barely make a dent in 91,500 projected doctor shortage. [0] and most that are members of the AMA aren't members because they want to receive any representation from them, but because AMA membership is required to gain access to the paperwork required for certain types of billing (AMA holds the copyright on the paperwork).