Liasson reports that AMA opposes any public plan, ignoring AMA's inconsistency
SUMMARY: Mara Liasson claimed that the AMA opposes a public plan as a component of health care reform. In fact, after being quoted in The New York Times saying that it opposed a public plan, the AMA backtracked.
On the June 12 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson reported of health care reform proposals: "Republicans oppose a public plan. So does the American Medical Association, the country's biggest doctors lobby." But Liasson did not note that after being quoted in The New York Times saying that it opposed a public plan, the AMA backtracked.
A June 10 New York Times article reported that the organization "will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan." The Times added: " 'The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.' " Subsequently, in a release responding to the Times, AMA president Nancy Nielsen stated: "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." Neilsen added: "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 a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress."
Moreover, Liasson ignored the support of other doctors' groups for a public plan, including -- as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has noted -- the National Physicians Alliance and Physicians for a National Health Program.
From the June 12 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
LIASSON: Up until now, President Obama has confined himself to broad principles for a health care overhaul, leaving the details to Congress, but he could no longer avoid the one detail that's emerged as the biggest obstacle to health care legislation: Republicans oppose a public plan. So does the American Medical Association, the country's biggest doctors lobby. And even more perilous for the president, so do many moderate Democrats in Congress whose votes he needs to pass a bill.
Well Mr. Wallace, we had an election last year that proves this is not true. There was no secret agenda about health care, Obama said what he wanted and is moving ahead on it. But the conservative tactic of repeating falsehood enough to create the myth they then handout as truth will no longer fool people. And the media circus will not distract the president from getting congress to finally do the right thing.
That the AMA isn't interested in midicare rates should show anyone without an axe to grind they are protecting their meal tickets. Their silence on this issue for all these years shows american health care is less important to them than doctors portfolio care.
=========
I was dismayed this morning by the slant of your coverage of the health care reform debates now underway in Congress. While a single payer option was mentioned a couple of times, it was always presented as an option everyone is frantically trying to avoid, as something undesirable, as scary "socialized" medicine (that would take its place with our "socialized" police and fire protection and libraries and all of the other government services we get with our tax dollars). Nowhere did Julie Ravner or Steve Inskeep mention that many polls show that a majority (60%) of Americans WANT single-payer health coverage. At least that merits a mention, even though the Beltway insiders -- especially our elected officials who enjoy lifetime "socialized" health care -- don't want to acknowledge that, so we will get half a loaf of reform that keeps the insurance companies with their hands in our pockets.
She's done this on a number of occasions, and she did it again on Saturday. The "moderates" in the Democratic Party are against the public option, she said.
Of course this is a complete sham. 'Moderate' if it means anything is a measure of where the American People stand at midpoint, not where conservative Dems leave off and even more conservative GOPers begin.
She's done this on a number of occasions, and she did it again on Saturday. The "moderates" in the Democratic Party are against the public option, she said.
Of course this is a complete sham. 'Moderate' if it means anything is a measure of where the American People stand at midpoint, not where conservative Dems leave off and even more conservative GOPers begin.