About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NBC's Guthrie falsely suggests AMA represents "the nation's doctors"

June 15, 2009 11:08 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Savannah Guthrie falsely suggested that the American Medical Association represents all of "the nation's doctors." In fact, the AMA represents about 29 percent of licensed U.S. doctors, according to the AMA's own figures.

33 Comments

During the June 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, NBC News White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie falsely suggested that the American Medical Association (AMA) represents all of "the nation's doctors." In fact, the AMA -- which reportedly stated to Congress that it opposed "a public health insurance option" before backtracking from that position -- represents about 29 percent of licensed U.S. doctors, according to the AMA's own figures. Moreover, other doctors' groups, including the National Physicians Alliance and Physicians for a National Health Program, support some form of additional public insurance, as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has noted.

During her appearance on Morning Joe, Guthrie referred to the AMA as "the nation's doctors" and "the doctors." Discussing a June 15 AMA meeting Obama plans to attend in Chicago, Guthrie stated: "He has to sell his plan, obviously, to the audience before him, which is the nation's doctors, but also the larger audience, and certainly an audience in Congress." Guthrie added, "And the doctors, in particular, are on record as opposing this notion of having a public plan, a government-sponsored insurance plan, alongside all the private plans that we are all familiar with. ... At the same time, there is no question that he really wants a public option to be part of whatever health-care reform looks like, and this is something the doctors oppose."

However, contrary to Guthrie's description of the AMA as "the nation's doctors" and "the doctors," the AMA does not represent the majority of doctors in the United States. According to its 2008 annual report, the AMA "is a national professional association of physicians with approximately 236 thousand members," and the AMA's online physician locator -- which states that it provides "basic professional information on virtually every licensed physician in the United States" -- includes "more than 814,000 doctors." A March 2005 USA Today article similarly reported that "[t]he nation now has about 800,000 active physicians." Based on the AMA figures, the association represents slightly less than 29 percent of licensed physicians in the United States.

As Klein noted in a June 11 washingtonpost.com blog entry, the National Physicians Alliance supports "a public plan," and Physicians for a National Health Program is in favor of a "single-payer" system of health care.

From the June 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

GUTHRIE: He has to sell his plan, obviously, to the audience before him, which is the nation's doctors, but also the larger audience, and certainly an audience in Congress. This is going to be a big week for health care, a lot of moving parts. And the doctors, in particular, are on record as opposing this notion of having a public plan, a government-sponsored insurance plan, alongside all the private plans that we are all familiar with.

This is something the president clearly supports, even though there's a lot of talk around here that the administration is flexible. At the same time, there is no question that he really wants a public option to be part of whatever health-care reform looks like, and this is something the doctors oppose.

Now there was a little bit of a clarification of that; the AMA later wrote a letter to the editor saying, well, we're open to other alternatives. But it's clear that they and a lot of folks in Congress, not just Republicans, some Democrats even, are fiercely opposed to this public plan option. That's going to be one of the biggest fights when it comes to health care reform this summer -- that, and of course, how to pay for it.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (June 15, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
         
      That could be an honest mistake. I would've made the same assumtion. But as a journalist she should have done some fact checking before saying that on the air.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rrastro (June 15, 2009 8:28 pm ET)
          2
        thats ok...afl-cio numbers are about as good
        Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (June 15, 2009 9:28 pm ET)
             
          Cryptic as your post is, your reply 'replies' to the the post you replied to, HOW?
          thanks.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rrastro (June 17, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
               
            the afl cio represents factory workers in numbers almost a spoor as ama represents doctors...and i am not 'shaggles'
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (June 15, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
      1 3
      Note to MM: Guthrie did not say the AMA represents "ALL" doctors.

      Is this what we call a slow day in the "conservative misinformation" business?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (June 15, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
        1  
        Actually, she did say that.

        She referred to "the audience before him, which is the nation's doctors...And the doctors, in particular, are on record as opposing this notion of having a public plan..."

        She referred to AMA members as "the nation's doctors."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by idocare (June 15, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
         
      I have to say that if all citizens are required to have health insurance without there being a credible public program in the mix, all of this debate is for nothing and the result only serves as a very early, very enormous Christmas present to Americas' insurers. Are we to believe that they REALLY will behave themselves, offering comprehensive insurance that covers everyone without exclusions and at an affordable rate, or are they likely to be overly conscious of the bottom line (as they are for-profit entities) and offer us plans that have more holes than Swiss cheese. The AMA should remember that over 60% of personal bankruptcies are generated by medical bills, and that most of THOSE claims were made by people who did have health insurance. Can Americans afford this and additionally, can U.S. business survive competitively in this global economy without a strong public plan?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 15, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
      1 1
      Just wondering - who is the NPA? The AMA has 236,000 doctors who pony up $420 a year to belong, while the NPA (as credible as the AMA, if you take the assumption of the MMFA)has 20,000 members - who get their first year free, and pay $120 per year thereafter. How many of that 20K are first year members? MMFAs trumpeting of the NPA as an significant alternative to the AMA is dishonest at best.
      Most doctors rightly oppose the 'public option.' If the U.S. government becomes the 'competition' to private insurance, there soon will be no private insurance. The government has already screwed up the medical field beyond belief, why would any sane person want to give them more power?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (June 15, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
           
        Why is the health insurance cartel and conservatives worried about competition? If the claims you make about national healthcare are true, the public option will die, not private insurance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rrastro (June 15, 2009 8:38 pm ET)
             
          First health insurance is a scam where your employer takes "pretax earnings" so you can pay your medical bills plus about 20% more than your bills, withe the perverse result that you lose the money if you do not elect health coverage for some reason.

          Second, competition is not at the consumer level but at the consumers employer's level. The employer has powerful incentives to NOT provide coverage....ask GM.

          Last the government does not compete. They crush. Ask Sallie Mae and NelNet about government 'competition' and government efforts to 'level the playing field'.

          Why is no one proposing a tax free account that your employer must place at your control to do as you see fit (10% of your wage, above and beyond your wage--ex you get 10.00/hr, and and additional 1.00/hr for health care) and your get to keep any excess (vs the government as it works now) tax free...then there would be real consumer competition including providers...a la lasik.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (June 15, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
               
            If you don't like the public option, feel free to keep your own insurance.

            And I have no idea what you're talking about in your last paragraph.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (June 17, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                 
              if you get healthcare, your employer give you tax free income (called paid premiums). If you decline health care your employer gives you.....NOTHING!

              shouldnt every one receive their full income?

              shouldnt health savings accounts be yours to keep instead of earning money for the government?

              if you dont understand the issues in play.....say 'baaaa'
              Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (June 15, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
           
        A question for you:

        Obama was booed during his speech to the AMA when he said he would not take up tort reform. Why should we have tort reform in a free society?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 15, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
           
        If the U.S. government becomes the 'competition' to private insurance, there soon will be no private insurance.

        God, we certainly hope so. It's time they go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rrastro (June 15, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
             
          the only way private health insurance will disappear is if government removes it
          Report Abuse
          • Author by my4cents (June 15, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
            1  
            So why the opposition to public 'option'?
            Private insurers are almost as inefficient as the government. They survive because there is no no real competition.
            Any well run government plan would prove it and drive them out of business.
            That is why, IMO.
            That is why the Republicans oppose anything public funded. In every sphere of my life (in Mass.), the only choice I have are private companies (influential Capitalists) 'competing' for my business except there is no real competition.
            1. If I want cable, I cannot get anything but Comcast. Only comcast provides the cable service in town.
            2. If I want a a land line phone, nothing but Verizon.
            3. If I want electricity, only choice is Mass Electric.
            4. If I want gas heating, only choice is Baystate gas and they say I have to pay for running the pipe from where ever it currently is, to my home.
            Free market, competition, Capitalism etc. have not been useful to me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 16, 2009 9:02 am ET)
              1  
              The reason there is no competition in the utilities is because our governments, in their manifold wisdom, will not allow competition, claiming efficiency justifies the monopoly. So don't blame the free market - it's not a free market. It's a government boondoggle.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jaysculler (June 16, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
                1  
                And in a true free market everyone has to have the option to choose to buy or walk away. With our current health care situation, few if any people can choose to walk away from their current plan. They can't choose to get a different plan. It doesn't matter if there is one provider or a thousand, if the consumers can't freely choose then it isn't a free market. Health care will NEVER be free market, and I don't know if it should be.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (June 17, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
                     
                  health isurance is a free market....you can buy from any company you choose, but most people choose the one their employer gives them heaps of money to defray costs
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (June 17, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
                 
              private insurers compete with each other....DUH!

              regarding 1, you are wrong...there is dish network and direct tv

              regarding 2, only if you need a land line--lots of options with cell phones and voip

              regarding 3...yep we need deregulation

              regarding 4..what about electric, oil and wood?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (June 16, 2009 12:00 am ET)
         
      Who the hell cares what they support? Yeah, it's nice and all, but that's like listening to what auto-repair shops have to say about mandatory car insurance. It's not their call to make.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 16, 2009 8:58 am ET)
           
        Mandatory car insurance works pretty well if the government stays out of the way (ie. no-fault mandates). Why should you listen to car fixers about car fixing? Why should you listen to doctors about health care? Why should you listen to a plumber about plumbing? Why should you listen to a carpenter about carpentry?
        How about this for starters - they know what they are talking about!
        Unlike the Barney Franks and Barry Obamas and Chuck Grassleys of this world - who have never run a business (except maybe to assist in protection for a male brothel), and have no idea of how to go about making a business profitable.
        While Grassley's Iowa neighbors have made a living from farming, Grassley has made millions as a simple farmer from Iowa. He started of as a conservative but has become a 'statist.' And he thinks he knows better than doctors about medical care! The arrogance and stupidity of our 'ruling elite' is so profound as to be breathtaking.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 16, 2009 10:53 am ET)
            1
          They usually know how to make a profit. To often at their customers disadvantage.
          Debunked talking point on Barney Franks duly noted.
          Taking business's advice, actually allowing them to write the legislation that controls their professional activities, has brought us to this sorry state in so many differant professions. The middle class has taken so many hits in the last eight years+, what hit me again, it feels so good!
          Doctors do not have much of a say today on what care their patients recieve.
          Your recitation of medical business CEO's talking points, not so breathtaking. Just more Straussian rhetoric. Of no benifit to the average american.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 16, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
               
            Straussian?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (June 16, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
                 
              From the work of Leo Strauss. He's been called the god father of Neoconservatism.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 16, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
               
            Business is about making a profit. Without profit, business is a waste of time - or is a charity.
            Much of medicine in the U.S. was charity until the feds got involved. As a child, I was hospitalized for 6 months in a Catholic hospital. As they checked me out, a nun asked my Dad to come to the office. He asked what he owed, and they asked what he could pay - and that was the bill! They would take his farm today, but it is illegal to do what they did then.
            Governmental intrusion made charity an impossibility. It made the cost of health care prohibitive, and before it is over the government will have completely strangled the best health care system in the world.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (June 16, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
                 
              Statistics on international health care do do not support you. We pay the most per captita. We are ranked 37th. Point to a major legislative law in the last decade concerning the medical profession that was not written by the medical industry leaders.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by NPAlliance (June 17, 2009 12:12 am ET)
        1
      Are you a healthcare professional who is committed to a robust public health plan option? Please join us in petitioning Congress!

      www.docsforapublicplanoption.org

      We are a diverse group of healthcare professionals and students of the health professions that support the choice of a public health insurance plan as an essential component of comprehensive health care reform this year.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.