Physicians Take Back Medicine – More on AAPS Lawsuit Against White House

[amicus]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Withdraw the healthcare bill and start over.

That’s the message in a letter sent today to Sen. Harry Reid from a national physician association representing doctors in all specialties.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) asked Senate Majority Harry Reid to give America a real Christmas gift: withdraw the divisive healthcare reform bill.

The majority of Americans don’t want the bill—which is primarily a compulsory insurance bill – including the majority of physicians. More than 40 medical organizations are on the record against the bill, representing more than 500,000 doctors – far surpassing the AMA membership.

There’s something in the 2,000 pages for everyone to hate,” said Jane M. Orient, M.D., AAPS Executive Director, co-signatory of the letter. “It’s bad medicine, and bad public policy.”

The letter states: “The heart of this proposal is compulsory insurance: it forces Americans to buy a product they would otherwise reject, thereby subsidizing the very corporations that are being justly criticized from both the left and the right. This should be unacceptable to all, including both single-payer and free-market advocates..."

~~~

You can do your own search, AAPS Lawsuit...

So the Obama plan will simply draft those 500,000 doctoss that are opposed to government run healthcare? And no one here stands up for the freedom of the doctors?

Figures...

Amicus Veritas

 

[ishtat]

Amicus, Your comments here and elsewhere seem to me to imply that there is a free market in health care and that Obama is interfering in that.

I do not particularly wish to debate whether the Obama solution is good or bad but would observe

1 That the current US system costs some 60 to 70% more than any other first world nation, per head of population.

2 The USA is placed 38th in the world in terms of average longevity, a very poor result.

3 The current US system is not a free market and has never been a free market.The medical profession, tests, diagnoses, refers, sets prices, runs secondary services, (hospitals) controls entry to and advancement within the profession. The profession has complete vertical and horizontal integration and controls the economic outcome at every point.

4 I don't know how the essentially monopolistic power of the profession can be changed within the current market because a free market is demonstrably impossible to achieve and this is the case everywhere in the world.

5 I have not seen a single credible alternative proposed by anyone on the right in American politics which will enable all Americans to enjoy first world medical care.

6 In the final analysis the freedom of American Doctors to do what they like and charge what they like depends on their freedom to allow far too many of their fellow Americans to die needlessly and prematurely.

7 Much of the argument from the right has been doctrinaire in the extreme and lacks any pragmatism.

I wonder in fact whether, with the rise of neo cons(an oxy moron), and libertarian fundamentalism there are any traditional conservatives left. The right in American politics seems at the moment to be devoid of both ideas and rational leadership.

Personally I think the main failure of the new legislation is that the medicos will find new ways of diverting the additional cash which will be generated to their own pockets.

For the record I have lived in the US the UK and OZ and suffered the health services of them all

 

[stephen55]

An amiism of the first order.....

So the Obama plan will simply draft those 500,000 doctoss (sic) that are opposed to government run healthcare? And no one here stands up for the freedom of the doctors?

Figures...

As a GP who worked for his entire career in Canada, I'm an coward of the Intellectual Left, morally and ethically bankrupt having sacrificed my freedom on the alter of socialism...what next...right...so immersed in socialist theology that I can't think for myself. Surely you don't expect me to stand up for those docs who are (absolutely, totally, completely and every other way) doomed to be drafted into ObamaKare.

Give me a call when it happens....(1-800-DOC-FREE)

 

[amicus]

So this great debate over Healthcare in the US over the past year is empty rhetoric because free market economics in the health market plays no part?

I unduly attributed to you a greater logical ability than you just displayed.

Freedom, individual human freedom and its' economic expression, the free market place, is and has always been an ideal to strive for, to attempt to perfect.

We have ample examples, all over the world, of centralized government failing to protect the individual while at the same time, attempting to deliver all the services demanded, or deemed proper, to the people.

That you do not comprehend the essential necessity of human freedom in terms of the individual as fundamental to all other individual pursuits, is quite clear. Rather than whine at the idealism of those who cherish freedom, why not extoll the virtues of a completely controlled society?

Let us hear your passionate defense of both the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. It should be a simple task since you are so convinced of your faith.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

jeez, amicus, making stuff up, again.

ami cites this claim: More than 40 medical organizations are on the record against the bill, representing more than 500,000 doctors – far surpassing the AMA membership.

ami, further: So the Obama plan will simply draft those 500,000 doctoss that are opposed to government run healthcare? And no one here stands up for the freedom of the doctors?


this is a claim that of about 900,000 doctors, 500,000 are against the Democrats' plan. you cite no evidence. it very odd, if 500,000 doctors oppose, that the AMA-- membership 250,000 --would be *endorsing* the plan. that would make the AMA mostly liberals!

further, the fallacy of adding up organizations' membership to reach 500,000 is glaring. for an organization to endorse, just 51% need to vote for it, assuming there is a vote. one can hardly assume EVERY member agrees.

and of course, your talk of drs being 'drafted' is ridiculous: there is no public plan, *so every dr who works for himself or herself or for a private entity is left that way by the plan.* and clearly those already in government-run entities are employees, not draftees, and will remain so. working at a VA hospital is hardly slavery.

 

[Carnevil9]

Amicus, Your comments here and elsewhere seem to me to imply that there is a free market in health care and that Obama is interfering in that.

I do not particularly wish to debate whether the Obama solution is good or bad but would observe

1 That the current US system costs some 60 to 70% more than any other first world nation, per head of population.

2 The USA is placed 38th in the world in terms of average longevity, a very poor result.

3 The current US system is not a free market and has never been a free market.The medical profession, tests, diagnoses, refers, sets prices, runs secondary services, (hospitals) controls entry to and advancement within the profession. The profession has complete vertical and horizontal integration and controls the economic outcome at every point.

4 I don't know how the essentially monopolistic power of the profession can be changed within the current market because a free market is demonstrably impossible to achieve and this is the case everywhere in the world.

5 I have not seen a single credible alternative proposed by anyone on the right in American politics which will enable all Americans to enjoy first world medical care.

6 In the final analysis the freedom of American Doctors to do what they like and charge what they like depends on their freedom to allow far too many of their fellow Americans to die needlessly and prematurely.

7 Much of the argument from the right has been doctrinaire in the extreme and lacks any pragmatism.

I wonder in fact whether, with the rise of neo cons(an oxy moron), and libertarian fundamentalism there are any traditional conservatives left. The right in American politics seems at the moment to be devoid of both ideas and rational leadership.

Personally I think the main failure of the new legislation is that the medicos will find new ways of diverting the additional cash which will be generated to their own pockets.

For the record I have lived in the US the UK and OZ and suffered the health services of them all

1. Probably true, but due to Tort Laws run amok and lack of interstate competition.

2. Probably true, but due to overall affluence and the obesity and sedentary life style that comes with it.

3. True that it's not a free market now; UNTRUE that it never has been. It was, and could (and should) be again.

4. Demonstrably? How can you demonstrably prove a negative? You can't. Just ask Socrates.

5. You aren't looking very hard.

6. You don't understand free market economics, but we've already established that.

7. Huh? Talk American, boy.

 

[stephen55]

Let us hear your passionate defense of both the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. It should be a simple task since you are so convinced of your faith.


ami, I don't have a clue what you mean by the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. I understand the word 'pragmatic'. I'm fairly clear on 'ideology'. I must say I was not at all clear on "Statism', so I looked it up and found this on wikipedia...

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.[1][2] It may also refer to a political philosophy that holds that

sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3]

All I can say is Statist??.....not me. That def'nition of fascist statism....I ain't never 'xalted no nation, 'specially as ah..ah organic body headed by a Supreme Leader. Hell, I ain't 'xalted no Supreme leadur, no time, no how, 'cept fur Pastor Thomas Robb, Nashnul Directur ah them Knights ah the Ku Klux Klan, bless hiz lil' bitty hart...

An' just what the Sam Hell is ah organic body enway? I ain't nevur seen no organic body. Course I ain't never seen no inorganic body neithur. So don' you be callin' me no staitist...evun if I ain't quite so book larned uz you. Why, my pappy done tol' me that a fella like you is... al' talk...an' soft in the head at that...probly don't know the diffurunce batween corn pone an' a corn crib...shucks...ya otta be 'shamed ah yo'self...talkin' all high an' mighty like that...probly one oh them tee-baggin' fools...yup...rekin so...

 

[ishtat]

So this great debate over Healthcare in the US over the past year is empty rhetoric because free market economics in the health market plays no part?

I unduly attributed to you a greater logical ability than you just displayed.

Freedom, individual human freedom and its' economic expression, the free market place, is and has always been an ideal to strive for, to attempt to perfect.

We have ample examples, all over the world, of centralized government failing to protect the individual while at the same time, attempting to deliver all the services demanded, or deemed proper, to the people.

That you do not comprehend the essential necessity of human freedom in terms of the individual as fundamental to all other individual pursuits, is quite clear. Rather than whine at the idealism of those who cherish freedom, why not extoll the virtues of a completely controlled society?

Let us hear your passionate defense of both the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. It should be a simple task since you are so convinced of your faith.

Amicus

Ami, I note that you haven't tried to answer any of my seven points thus confirming my original proposition that neither you nor any of the bills opponents on the right has a credible alternative.

You fancy yourself as big on 'freedom' and 'idealism' Ami but you don't have a clue on how to achieve or progress your ideas in reality. And that makes you and your fellow travellers utterly irrelavent.

I am interested in ideas that work, you do not appear to have any. Hollering at the moon doesn't cut it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with the Association of American Physicians or with the American Association of Physician Specialists.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Type Political advocacy group
Founded May 1944
Headquarters Tucson, Arizona, United States
Focus Opposes abortion, Medicare/Medicaid, universal health care, and government involvement in health care; publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Motto "A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943"
Website http://www.aapsonline.org/

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit organization founded in 1943.[1] The group had approximately 4,000 members in 2005.[2] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey.[3] The executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the non-profit Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources.

[edit] History

During the winter of 1943, the Lake County (Indiana) Medical Committee decided to take action against the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, proposed legislation that would provide government health care for most U.S. citizens. Also opposed to the bill was the conservative National Physicians Committee. The committee began a membership drive in February 1944. By May 1944, the AAPS claimed members from all 48 states.[1] In 1944, Time reported that the group's aim was the "defeat of any Government group medicine."[1] In 1966, the New York Times described AAPS as an "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than a medical group," and noted that some of its leaders were members of the John Birch Society.[4]

[edit] Positions

Though it describes itself as "non-partisan",[5] AAPS is generally recognized as politically conservative.[4][6][7][8] According to Mother Jones, "despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[8]

The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[9] universal health care[10] and government intervention in healthcare.[8][11] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[12] and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[13] AAPS argues that individuals should purchase medical care directly from doctors, and that there is no right to medical care.[14] The organization requires its members to sign a "declaration of independence" pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[8]

AAPS also opposes mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines, criticizing them as a usurpation of physician autonomy and a fascist merger of state and corporate power where the biggest stakeholder is the pharmaceutical industry.[15] Other procedures that AAPS opposes include abortion[16] and over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.[17] AAPS also opposes electronic medical records[8] as well as any "direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees."[18]

On Oct 25 2008 the AAPS website published an editorial implying that Barack Obama was using Neuro-linguistic Programming, "a covert form of hypnosis", in his presidential campaign.[19]
-------------------

There's more if you want to read it.

 

[stephen55]

Who are these bozos.....

I admit to having been a tad perplexed at reading about the The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). I'd never heard of them.

I've heard of and support the American Medical Association (AMA) which I understand is the largest largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA supports health care reform. My guess is that's because the AMA is a medical association that puts patients' interests first.

Today, the AAPS filed suit against the US government in their attempt to derail health care reform.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/30/medical-society-files-lawsuit-block-health-care-overhaul/

As dr_mabeuse posted...

despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."

 

[Pure]

thanks mab!

the story of AAPS (and ami's citing of it) was fishy as hell. typical Fox material. but i didn't quite nail it. thanks!

i don't think that many physicians are teabaggers, so i don't expect any significant number are going to quit, withdraw services, or go on strike. after all, if self employed or privately employed, they remain that way under The Plan. so who the fuck would they strike against?

 

[Stella_Omega]

So this great debate over Healthcare in the US over the past year is empty rhetoric because free market economics in the health market plays no part?

Well, duh.

 

[Loring2]

Well now

Let us hear your passionate defense of both the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. It should be a simple task since you are so convinced of your faith.


ami, I don't have a clue what you mean by the ideology and the pragmatism of Statism. I understand the word 'pragmatic'. I'm fairly clear on 'ideology'. I must say I was not at all clear on "Statism', so I looked it up and found this on wikipedia...

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.[1][2] It may also refer to a political philosophy that holds that

sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[3]

All I can say is Statist??.....not me. That def'nition of fascist statism....I ain't never 'xalted no nation, 'specially as ah..ah organic body headed by a Supreme Leader. Hell, I ain't 'xalted no Supreme leadur, no time, no how, 'cept fur Pastor Thomas Robb, Nashnul Directur ah them Knights ah the Ku Klux Klan, bless hiz lil' bitty hart...

An' just what the Sam Hell is ah organic body enway? I ain't nevur seen no organic body. Course I ain't never seen no inorganic body neithur. So don' you be callin' me no staitist...evun if I ain't quite so book larned uz you. Why, my pappy done tol' me that a fella like you is... al' talk...an' soft in the head at that...probly don't know the diffurunce batween corn pone an' a corn crib...shucks...ya otta be 'shamed ah yo'self...talkin' all high an' mighty like that...probly one oh them tee-baggin' fools...yup...rekin so...

Steven ... I guess you're just one of them thar intelectual fellers ... you know the kind I mean ... the ones who are about half as smart as they think they are and keep proving it every day.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Steven ... I guess you're just one of them thar intelectual fellers ... you know the kind I mean ... the ones who are about half as smart as they think they are and keep proving it every day.

You obviously speak from experience......while Mon Ami (Komrad Amikus for the rest of ya) talks outa his ass......

 

[SeaCat]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/health-care-reform-begins-now-for-one-mount-509473.html

Cat

 

[stephen55]

Steven ... I guess you're just one of them thar intelectual fellers ... you know the kind I mean ... the ones who are about half as smart as they think they are and keep proving it every day.

Loring...you ken just shut yo' mouth. Ah ain't one o' them thar intulectu-awl fellers. Why, I dun got jest two buuks in ma liberary. One ah don' look at much any more...cuz ah alredy dun culured all the picturs...an' the othur one...ain't no good 'cept fur the centurfold anyways...yep...rekin so...

 

[Liar]

1. Probably true, but due to Tort Laws run amok and lack of interstate competition.

2. Probably true, but due to overall affluence and the obesity and sedentary life style that comes with it.

1. Tort problems is a drop in the ocean. Market consolidation is a major problem, and interstate competition would help. A little. But one of the big probems is that insurance companies choose to not compete, even where they can. Simply becuse it's been too profitable to corner ans insulate your market share.

2. Um. Poor people are fatter than rich. Because here in the west, the cheapest food is the fattest, starchiest and sweetest. But I guess that's what you mean by "overall affluence", the fact that an industrial nation with a commercial mass market food industry is far removed from growing their own beets and herding their own goats.

 

[stephen55]

despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."


From the ever popular TV show, "Glenn Beck MD. Talks About Your Health".

"If you ever hear your cardiologist...use the words...heart disease...or...coronary artery disease...run, run for your very life...those words are code words...code words for both the...the rallying cry of the...communist front...and for the...fascist front....if your cardiologist ever...ever...uses those words...get another cardiologist...."

 

[amicus]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/health-care-reform-begins-now-for-one-mount-509473.html

Cat

~~~~

One doctor recommends those who support Obama's socialized health plan, find another physician.

Under the keyword search: percentage of doctors refusing to perform abortions.. you can do your own search, I found the following:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...doctors-refuse-to-perform-surgery-444909.html

Efforts made by previous posters to denigrate those physicians who are opposed to socialized medicine are understandable, but indicative of the 'true believer' nature of the posters.

That there are doctors with absolute ethical and moral standards, is a thorn in the side of those who believe that one can force medical personnel to provide their services as a 'right' to those in need.

The far left just cannot comprehend why some folks prefer individual rights over the needs of the masses and will do anything to besmirch any who openly refuse to particicate in slavery.

Once again I pose the quintessential question: how do you justify the use of force to achieve your agenda?

I won't hold my breath.

Amicus Veritas

 

[SeaCat]

While I agree with the intent of the new laws I think they should have made a slight change.

Instead of forcing people to get the Health Insurance they claim they don't want,make them instead sign a waiver. Then when they get sick or are injured and don't have insurance they can't get care unless they can pay for it out of their pocket.

Cat

 

[stephen55]

The far left just cannot comprehend why some folks prefer individual rights over the needs of the masses and will do anything to besmirch any who openly refuse to particicate (sic) in slavery.

Once again I pose the quintessential question: how do you justify the use of force to achieve your agenda?
***********************

I don't.

And I sold my slaves when I stopped besmirching those who refused to openly participate in slavery.

As for my preference for individual rights, I think it's the right way to go. I have a problem with those who insist on their individual wrongs.

As for the needs of the masses, on your side of the border there seems to be a few. Perhaps your individual wrongs have something to do with that. On my side of the border there aren't any needs of the masses except for a decent five cent cigar and maybe hockey stick for less than $280.00. All of those other needs like food, shelter and health care have been taken care of already. It's one of the advantages of a parliamentary democracy over a constitutional republic. Of course we have to accept the Three Minute Hate, the Thought Police from The Ministry of Love, Doublespeak and all the rest of the package from Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Wait a minute....it's 2010. So ask all those Americans who took in the 2010 Winter Olympics..what did they think of Victory Gin?

Moron.........