9 ms·
When they spent $400,000,000 on favorable monopolistic legislation it helps to aim the spotlight on anyone else.
by deregulateMed 5y ago
When they spent $400,000,000 on favorable monopolistic legislation it helps to aim the spotlight on anyone else.
- giantg2 5y agoWhat organization and legislation was that?
- deregulateMed 5y agoAmerican Medical Association, aka physicians
- giantg2 5y agoAnd what was the legislation? How was it monopolistic in favor of physicians? The AMA does not really represent physicians. Less than 1/4 of doctors belong to the AMA. Many of them do not feel the AMA represents them. The AMA also accepts substantial donations from other sources, including corporate donors and foundations. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-voice-of-physicians-in-the-us https://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-voice...
- renewiltord 5y agoThe lobbying to: A. Limit medical care to being provided by these people B. Limit number of residencies
- geogra4 5y agoI hate this line that's repeated all the time because its simply wrong. Osteopathy has its own residencies and the DO is legally equivalent to an MD
- giantg2 5y ago"Limit medical care to being provided by these people" Who else would provide this care? This licensure is similar to other professions, like lawyers, and really doesn't take very much lobbying since the majority of the public want oversight of these sorts of professionals. Residencies simply haven't kept pace with medical student numbers. They have gone up though. The main question is "where does the funding come from for residency training?". Medicare provides most of that funding, but that is a constrained resource. I find it hard to believe that the AMA lobbied for this provision.
- long_time_gone 5y ago==Who else would provide this care?== Nurse practitioners. AMA has a whole campaign on their website celebrating it: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/ama-successfully-fights-scope-practice-expansions-threaten https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/...
- renewiltord 5y agoYou find it hard to believe a thing that the AMA made an overt aim of. Fascinating. Well, I’m out of this conversation.
- giantg2 5y agoThen show me a source.
- long_time_gone 5y agoI showed you a source earlier in the thread and you didn't respond. It is the website of AMA, where they celebrate their success in lobbying against any bill that would allow other professionals expanded capabilities. "For over 30 years, the AMA’s state and federal advocacy efforts have safeguarded the practice of medicine by opposing nurse practitioner (NP) and other nonphysician professional attempts to inappropriately expand their scope of practice." Here it is again: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/ama-successfully-fights-scope-practice-expansions-threaten https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/...
- nradov 5y agoYou have that backwards. The AMA is actively lobbying to increase the number of residencies. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fund-graduate-medical-education-address-physician-shortages https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
- renewiltord 5y agoHaha this is exactly why point source information is so damaging. The AMA spent years keeping this tightened down by spending money and then they started issuing press releases asking for the opposite (but this time, conspicuously leaving off the money spending). This naïveté is typical of HN. You’d read a press release from ISIS and conclude they’ve built a paradise. You need more knowledge than you can Google up. You need to be aware of what they did and do over the last 30 years. But it’s okay, you can believe falsehoods. No skin off my back.
- giantg2 5y agoSources?
- throwaway4220 5y agoI say this as an MD: AMA can suck it. I don't pay them and I don't think they represent me or the profession.