5 ms·

Using an AMA source is disingenuous since it’s a professional cartel with a massive vested interest in keeping doctor supply as limited as possible.

teh64 4y ago
But they are arguing in the source for more doctor supply?
- bombcar 4y ago
  They are blaming the lack of supply on something they don't control. There's a subtle difference.
nradov 4y ago
Do you have a substantive comment to contribute or are you going to stick with baseless low-effort snark? The comment I posted is true and correct. You could verify it with other independent sources if you bothered to do any research.
- kaesar14 4y ago
  Yeah sure. Fighting residency expansion: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shorta... Fighting expansion of care to other types of practicioners: 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/... Why would you believe the AMA's line on this? Do you think the professional association that represents all doctors, one of the highest paid and influential professions in the country, has no power to control the amount of residencies are funded by the government? They have no reason to increase the number of doctors, absolutely none. They benefit in every way from having constrained supply.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The AMA is literally lobbying Congress to expand residency program funding, and even putting their own money into it. Did you even read the article?
    - kaesar14 4y ago
      Yes - they're lobbying now to reverse caps they themselves[1] helped put into place, and like I said, have also limited primary care availability by lobbying against the ability of NPs and PAs to provided basic medical care. It's a complete bunch of talk until they get change done. By the way, that expansion of 15000 residency positions barely puts a dent in the number of doctors we are lacking[2]. But yeah, a press release from 3 years ago really absolves them of guilt for sure. [1]: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/ http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/ [2]: https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healthcare-workers-why-doesnt-the-u-s-just-make-more-doctors/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Association%20of,among%20primary%20care%20physicians%20alone https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healt....
  - dlp211 4y ago
    An article from 17 years ago reflects the PoV at that time, not today. The AMA has had different positions based on what they thought was best at the that time.
    - kaesar14 4y ago
      If they cared about expanding access to medical care they'd stop lobbying to prevent PAs and NPs from providing care. A half hearted attempt to add a paltry amount of residencies after 30 years of lobbying which led to the state we're in now does not absolve them of blame.

teh64 4y ago

But they are arguing in the source for more doctor supply?

bombcar 4y ago
They are blaming the lack of supply on something they don't control. There's a subtle difference.

nradov 4y ago

Do you have a substantive comment to contribute or are you going to stick with baseless low-effort snark? The comment I posted is true and correct. You could verify it with other independent sources if you bothered to do any research.

kaesar14 4y ago
Yeah sure. Fighting residency expansion: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shorta... Fighting expansion of care to other types of practicioners: 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/... Why would you believe the AMA's line on this? Do you think the professional association that represents all doctors, one of the highest paid and influential professions in the country, has no power to control the amount of residencies are funded by the government? They have no reason to increase the number of doctors, absolutely none. They benefit in every way from having constrained supply.
- nradov 4y ago
  The AMA is literally lobbying Congress to expand residency program funding, and even putting their own money into it. Did you even read the article?
  - kaesar14 4y ago
    Yes - they're lobbying now to reverse caps they themselves[1] helped put into place, and like I said, have also limited primary care availability by lobbying against the ability of NPs and PAs to provided basic medical care. It's a complete bunch of talk until they get change done. By the way, that expansion of 15000 residency positions barely puts a dent in the number of doctors we are lacking[2]. But yeah, a press release from 3 years ago really absolves them of guilt for sure. [1]: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/ http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/ [2]: https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healthcare-workers-why-doesnt-the-u-s-just-make-more-doctors/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Association%20of,among%20primary%20care%20physicians%20alone https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healt....
- dlp211 4y ago
  An article from 17 years ago reflects the PoV at that time, not today. The AMA has had different positions based on what they thought was best at the that time.
  - kaesar14 4y ago
    If they cared about expanding access to medical care they'd stop lobbying to prevent PAs and NPs from providing care. A half hearted attempt to add a paltry amount of residencies after 30 years of lobbying which led to the state we're in now does not absolve them of blame.