
The American Medical Association (AMA) is the largest association of physician in the United States. Its purpose is to advance the interests of physicians, to promote better public health, to lobbying for medical legislation, and to raise money for medical education. The AMA also publishes the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA), a prestigious medical journal. It also runs the SAVE program, which stands for Stop America's Violence Everywhere. == Political positions == For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly funded medicine. In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. ''American Medical Ass'n. v. United States'', 317 U.S. 519 (1943). Its vehement campaign against Medicare (United States) in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan. After the enactment of Medicare, however, the AMA has stated that it "continues to oppose attempts to cut Medicare funding or shift increased costs to beneficiaries at the expense of the quality or accessibility of care" and "strongly supports subsidization of prescription drugs for Medicare patients based on means testing". The AMA also campaigns to raise Medicare payments to physicians, arguing that increases will protect seniors' access to health care. In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President of the United States Bill Clinton. The AMA has given high priority to supporting changes in medical malpractice law to limit damage awards, which, it contends, contribute to rising health care costs. In many states, high risk specialists have moved to other states with such limits. For example, in 2004 not a single neurosurgeon remained in the entire southern half of Illinois. The main legislative emphasis in multiple states has been to effect caps on the amount that patients can receive for pain and suffering. These costs for pain and suffering are only those that exceed the actual costs of healthcare and lost income. Multiple states have found that limiting these costs have actually dramatically slowed increases in the costs of medical malpractice insurance. ==Criticisms== Economist Milton Friedman (1979) argues the AMA limits the supply of physicians in order to raise physicians' wages. It does this through State government licensure of physicians and schools, as only physicians are generally regarded as qualified enough to judge potential physicians. Since less than 1% of physicians are denied states licenses, this has little effect on the supply of physicians. Since the number of medical students is highly controlled by the funding provided by the federal government for medical education, this is the most important limitation in the supply of physicians. State licensing boards are primarily composed entirely of physicians, who are generally members of the AMA. License revocation means not only loss of the doctor's livelihood, but a devastating blow both socially and professionally. The good news is that very few physicians ever lose their license, and those that do lose their licenses are generally guilty of extremely egregious offenses. Critic Dale Steinreich, PhD, contends that the goal of the Council on Medical Education in 1904 was the shutting down more than half of all medical schools in the country (resulting in fewer doctors and thus higher fees). He also states that while there is nothing necessarily wrong with the seemingly high rejection rates found at most medical schools, that they are unreasonable given the relatively high quality pool of applicants. US medical schools graduate only 65% of the number of graduates needed to fill the existing medical residency slots. The remainder of these slots are filled by graduates of international medical schools. This means that the US medical school student population could increase by 50% without any effect on the numbers of physicians available to deliver care to the public. However, there would be significant cost to the US government to fund these additional slots in medical schools. Henry E. Jones, MD notes that American's annual cost per capita for health care ($4,662.00) is nearly double that of health care in other countries and quality is not necessarily higher: American life expectancy is 42nd in the world, infant mortality is 37th, and about 100,000 patients die in U.S. hospitals each year from accidental injuries, medication errors, and adverse drug reactions (equivalent to two major airline crashes per day). Jones contends that the high cost is primarily due to the AMA. If an MD feels competition from the local chiropractors, a naturopath, or a fellow MD of a different specialty infringing on his turf, he may complain to the AMA. A surgeon might complain of a general practitioner doing surgery or an obstetrician may complain about a family physician delivering babies. Jones argues that these complaints are reconfigured into safety concerns, such as "we are concerned that some in the chiropractic profession may be overstepping their areas of expertise and jeopardizing patient safety." If the targeted healthcare providers do not have a license to practice medicine from the AMA-controlled medical boards, the state attorney generals prosecute them for "practicing medicine without a license." If the group is licensed by the medical board, then its members are accused of practicing "below the standard of care." License revocation means not only loss of the doctor's livelihood, but a devastating blow both socially and professionally. Few physicians will go anywhere near that possibility. ==References== * Friedman, Milton & Rose (1979). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 0-15-133481-1. * Steinrich, Dale (2004). 100 Years of Medical Robbery. Ludwig von Mises Institute. [http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1547&id=69] * Jones, Henry (2005). How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care. Ludwig von Mises Institute. [http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749] Medical associations ==External links== * [http://www.ama-assn.org/ AMA home page] * [http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000068&Name=American+Medical+Assn AMA Political Contributions (Opensecrets.org)] * [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html Medical Control, Medical Corruption]
== "AMA Limit" == I deleted the "AMA Limit" section entirely, as I am not aware of ANY such limit; AMA's own website doesn't mention anything of the sort. I believe that the entire idea of a "limit" on doctors is as fictitious as much of the original text of this article which has already been deleted by others. The only limits I'm aware of on the number of doctors are limits on the number of med-school enrollees, but that's set by whoever runs the med school. (For example, the enrollment limit of Arkansas' only med school, the College of Medicine of the state-run University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, is set by the Arkansas legislature.) Most importantly, any limit of that sort imposed by a private entity (such as the AMA) would be a blatant violation of U.S. antitrust laws, especially Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and would likely risk both criminal and civil action by the U.S. Justice Department. The AMA can influence Federal and, more likely, state regulators (which are outside the reach of the antitrust laws) to set limits, but those are the responsibility of Federal and state governments, not the AMA. --R. Brittain (not a doctor or connected to doctors in any way) == NPOV Issues == The last paragraph in this article needs some serious clean-up to meet NPOV standards. :I'm going to go ahead an excise the last paragraph entirely. It doesn't really provide any insight regarding the AMA and seems more fitting for an article regarding the relative merits of socialized health care. --User:Cvaneg 19:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I decided to chop out most of the second to last paragraph too as it seemed to mostly be an argument for socialized health care. --User:Cvaneg 19:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) I revised the criticisms section, which I do understand is supposed to have a POV, but it still read a little too much like a rant against the AMA. I also threw out some statistics that I don't really think illustrated much of anything. In particular, the rejection rate from a single school for a single year (Does not illustrate overall acceptance rates. i.e. Students who have been accepted to one school vs. students who were accepted to none), and the population vs. the number of med schools (A better statistic would be increase in doctor population vs. overall population.) --User:Cvaneg 02:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The article is definitely one-sided. The AMA is such an enormous and complex organization, yet 50% of the article is devoted to what Dr. Henry Jones "contends". User:Edwardian 20:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) These three sentences do not reflect the ''current'' political positions or policy of the AMA nor do they supply full context for their historical positions and policies: ''"The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine. In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. American Medical Ass'n. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943). Its vehement campaign against Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan"'' I have removed them. User:Edwardian 21:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''"In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President Bill Clinton."'' As above. User:Edwardian 21:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :An article can and should give information about notable aspects of the subject's past. The article on Robert Byrd has a whole section on his participation in the KKK, which clearly doesn't reflect his current position. If the AMA has changed its views on some of these subjects, feel free to add an update. If the article fails to "supply full context for their historical positions and policies", feel free to amplify on the context. So far I see nothing that shows the deleted information to be inaccurate or irrelevant, so I'm restoring it. Also, the AMA's demonizing of medical malpractice victims is the AMA's (extremely biased) opinion; it can reasonably be included but it must be attributed to the AMA, not stated as if it were fact. User:JamesMLane 22:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Regarding ''"If the AMA has changed its views on some of these subjects, feel free to add an update."'' I did add an update and amplify the context of what the AMA's current political positions are but you deleted it: :::''The AMA officially "continues to oppose attempts to cut Medicare funding or shift increased costs to beneficiaries at the expense of the quality or accessibility of care" and "strongly supports subsidization of prescription drugs for Medicare patients based on means testing".'' ::Regarding ''"So far I see nothing that shows the deleted information to be inaccurate or irrelevant, so I'm restoring it."'' As far as I am concerned, I see nothing accurate or relevant about the deleted information so it should be deleted. The burden is on the author to prove information accurate or relevant, not on me to prove it inaccurate or irrelevant. But I'm happy to take it line by line: ::1) ''"The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine."'' I just provided information regarding their official position which directly contradicts that assertion as inaccurate. ::2) ''"In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. American Medical Ass'n. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943)."''Given that the title of the section is "Political positons" and that that assertion doesn't state anything about a "political position", it is irrelevant information in that section. Put it in "History" if you want. ::3) ''"Its vehement campaign against Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan."'' Again, this is not a current political position. Put it in a section entitled "History" and we can add more to it there. ::4) ''"In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President Bill Clinton."'' So what is the specific political position that is being referenced with this assertion? That their position is not President Clinton's position? ::I think the biggest problem I have with this article is the minutia being presented to push some sort of agenda. It's akin to trying to build the President Clinton article around the statement, "He was the guy who got his c*ck sucked." (Sorry for the length of this reply.) User:Edwardian 00:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I don't mind at all the length of your reply. Instead of vaguely alleging bias, you chose to deal with specifics, which is the only way we can make progress but which of course makes for long comments (and responses -- as you're about to discover!). :::With regard to my suggestion that you should add an update if you thought it important: You didn't just add an update; you completely removed all the information about the AMA's political stance before the enactment of Medicare. By contrast, the language that you say I removed is still in the article, except that I reworded it slightly so as not to assert, as a fact, that the AMA's actual motive in supporting higher physician reimbursement is to help seniors. (I personally don't think that's the actual motive. I stated the objective fact that we know, namely that that's the point the AMA has publicly advanced as an argument.) :::*Your point #1: The AMA opposed public funding when it was an issue. You're correct that, now that they've lost that battle, they continue to act in their own self-interest, and since they have no hope of ending Medicare they try to milk it for what they can. Nevertheless, we should clarify the timing. I didn't write the "traditionally" passage, and I edited the article to say "With Medicare in place, however, ...." with the idea of conveying that the previous discussion applied to pre-Medicare years, but it can't hurt to spell that out more explicitly. I've essayed a rewording. :::*Your point #2: I think this is reasonably related to the AMA's overall stance. The action described doesn't involve an electoral campaign, but I'd consider it political. In any event, regardless of how this material should be organized, it's not appropriate to delete information entirely just because you think it belongs in a different section. :::*Your point #3: More clearly political, and the heading doesn't say "Current political positions". :::*Your point #4: Sorry, I don't understand your question. There was a political issue -- should the U.S. adopt Clinton's proposal? The AMA took the "No" position on that particular issue. The passage clearly says that. Do you mean you think it implies that the AMA opposed Clinton generally? :::As to your final comment: Because Wikipedia is a volunteer project, it often happens that an article is unbalanced. Participants contribute what they're interested in, not what some overriding editorial authority has decided is most important. We have articles on minor ''Star Trek'' characters, but some Emperors of China are still red links. The solution to that kind of imbalance is not to delete accurate information, but to supply what's missing. If the article on Clinton consisted solely of a reference to the Lewinsky affair, I wouldn't delete that reference. Instead, I'd add the material I considered important. Here's the relevant Wikipedia policy: ::::An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV ''work in progress'', not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. (from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance) :::In this instance, it's not even a case of presenting only one POV. The article doesn't give the arguments for saying why the AMA was wrong in earlier years; it simply reports what the organization did. Therefore, there's even less justification for subtracting from the article. If you think that the article would be better balanced if it had a "History" section that recorded all the good things the AMA has done, feel free to add such a section. User:JamesMLane 14:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Are you saying that I specifically allege bias rather than vaguely allege bias! Anyway… ::::*Point #1: There is no doubt that the AMA is acting in their self-interest, but some might express that POV differently: “Although the AMA has little hope of regaining what they lost in the battle against socialism, they continue to act to hold onto what freedoms are left in healthcare.” Although I appreciate the change you made to make the statement more accurate (i.e. ''“The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine.”'' to ''“For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly funded medicine.”''), here are some points that I think should still be addressed: :::::*a) The term “publicly funded medicine”. Although most people are familiar with terms such as “socialized medicine”, “socialized healthcare”, “nationalized medicine”, “nationalized healthcare”, “single-payer health care”, and “universal health care”, somehow the choice to use “publicly funded medicine” was made here. I think that is a poor choice of words for a number of reasons: ::::::*i) The use of that term outside of Wiki is not well known. Try Googling “publicly funded medicine” and you’ll find that the hits that do not bring you back to Wiki are few and far between. ::::::*ii) Wiki articles should reflect terms in use outside of Wiki, not those primarily created, or whose meaning has been defined, within Wiki. (As above.) ::::::*iii) The term is vague and allows room for equivocation given that not even the Wiki definition states whether it applies to medical service for some citizens (e.g. Medicare or Medicaid) or medical service for all citizens (e.g. the NHS in the UK). So stating that the AMA opposes or opposed publicly funded medicine has no clear meaning. :::::*b) With that in mind, the AMA briefly supported compulsory health insurance around 1915 but since then has traditionally opposed any compulsory program that would lead to a nationalized healthcare system; but it has traditionally been in favor of tax-supported medicine for the poor or indigent. ::::*Point #2: I do think this would be better suited in a “History” section given that it does not reflect the AMA’s current position. To satisfy my own curiousity of the issue (which may reflect that of other readers), I also think a statement why they took the position they did would be warranted. ::::*Point #3: Nor does the heading say “Past political positions”. In my opinion, uninformed people referencing this article would want to know what the AMA is before they want to know what it was. I do think a discussion of the AMA’s initial opposition to Medicare is warranted, but I also think it should include substance (perhaps linking to the article of one of the aforementioned issues that have been hijacked…er, redirected to publicly funded medicine) more so than trivia (i.e. Operation Coffecup). ::::*Point #4: In my opinion, the article clearly states that the AMA opposed a position, but what that position was or why they opposed it is not clear. Let's work on this one. ::::Regarding your final comments, I think there is a difference between using neutral language and presenting a NPOV, and I do disagree that the solution to a successful Wiki article is to keep every possible factoid presented. Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance does also state: ''"Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important [emphasis mine]. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them."'' In my opinion, to get around that by stating that "it's all I know" or "it's a work in progress" is a bit weak. Still I will admit that it's difficult to know whether or not someone is presenting the only POV they know, or is blatantly violating the NPOV policy. User:Edwardian 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Several of your comments refer to information that could usefully be added to the article. I see no problem with factual additions, but I don't think the NPOV tag should stay on while we wait for the article to move closer to perfection. Would you agree to the removal of the tag? Nothing in here now is a "factoid" (in the sense of something so trivial it should be removed). :::::As to "publicly funded medicine", it is indeed a broad term. It covers socialized medicine but also more limited government programs, like Medicare (which couldn't appropriately be described with any of the alternatives you mention). Its Google ranking doesn't bother me. A term like "single-payer" is jargon that isn't familiar to everyone, but "publicly funded medicine" is just a description. Its meaning should be obvious to most people. Still, if it bothers you, what would you think about "the AMA opposed any government role in paying for health care"? User:JamesMLane 00:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I don't think the article yet presents a NPOV. I think the "Political positions" section inaccurately portrays the AMA's political history (although we're working on it) and the Criticism section, which comes across as though someone has an axe to grind, could be reduced to one sentence that says the same thing: "Critics assert that the AMA influences state medical licensing boards to limit the supply of licensed physicians in order to raise physician wages, which they claim leads to increased health care costs and a decreased quality of health care." ::::::I don't think "publicly funded medicine" is an description that accurately or specifically describes anything. If we are going to use that particular term, it should be noted again that the AMA has traditionally been in favor of tax-supported medicine (i.e. publicly funded medicine) for the poor or indigent. For that reason, for the article to state that "the AMA opposed any government role in paying for health care" is not true. User:Edwardian 04:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::(FYI, it was not I who made the large changes to the criticism section earlier today/yesterday. User:Edwardian 15:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with American_Medical_Association:
American_Medical_Association
American_Medical_Association
American Medical Association
The American Medical Association (AMA) is the largest association of physician in the United States. Its purpose is to advance the interests of physicians, to promote better public health, to lobbying for medical legislation, and to raise money for medical education. The AMA also publishes the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA), a prestigious medical journal. It also runs the SAVE program, which stands for Stop America's Violence Everywhere. == Political positions == For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly funded medicine. In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. ''American Medical Ass'n. v. United States'', 317 U.S. 519 (1943). Its vehement campaign against Medicare (United States) in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan. After the enactment of Medicare, however, the AMA has stated that it "continues to oppose attempts to cut Medicare funding or shift increased costs to beneficiaries at the expense of the quality or accessibility of care" and "strongly supports subsidization of prescription drugs for Medicare patients based on means testing". The AMA also campaigns to raise Medicare payments to physicians, arguing that increases will protect seniors' access to health care. In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President of the United States Bill Clinton. The AMA has given high priority to supporting changes in medical malpractice law to limit damage awards, which, it contends, contribute to rising health care costs. In many states, high risk specialists have moved to other states with such limits. For example, in 2004 not a single neurosurgeon remained in the entire southern half of Illinois. The main legislative emphasis in multiple states has been to effect caps on the amount that patients can receive for pain and suffering. These costs for pain and suffering are only those that exceed the actual costs of healthcare and lost income. Multiple states have found that limiting these costs have actually dramatically slowed increases in the costs of medical malpractice insurance. ==Criticisms== Economist Milton Friedman (1979) argues the AMA limits the supply of physicians in order to raise physicians' wages. It does this through State government licensure of physicians and schools, as only physicians are generally regarded as qualified enough to judge potential physicians. Since less than 1% of physicians are denied states licenses, this has little effect on the supply of physicians. Since the number of medical students is highly controlled by the funding provided by the federal government for medical education, this is the most important limitation in the supply of physicians. State licensing boards are primarily composed entirely of physicians, who are generally members of the AMA. License revocation means not only loss of the doctor's livelihood, but a devastating blow both socially and professionally. The good news is that very few physicians ever lose their license, and those that do lose their licenses are generally guilty of extremely egregious offenses. Critic Dale Steinreich, PhD, contends that the goal of the Council on Medical Education in 1904 was the shutting down more than half of all medical schools in the country (resulting in fewer doctors and thus higher fees). He also states that while there is nothing necessarily wrong with the seemingly high rejection rates found at most medical schools, that they are unreasonable given the relatively high quality pool of applicants. US medical schools graduate only 65% of the number of graduates needed to fill the existing medical residency slots. The remainder of these slots are filled by graduates of international medical schools. This means that the US medical school student population could increase by 50% without any effect on the numbers of physicians available to deliver care to the public. However, there would be significant cost to the US government to fund these additional slots in medical schools. Henry E. Jones, MD notes that American's annual cost per capita for health care ($4,662.00) is nearly double that of health care in other countries and quality is not necessarily higher: American life expectancy is 42nd in the world, infant mortality is 37th, and about 100,000 patients die in U.S. hospitals each year from accidental injuries, medication errors, and adverse drug reactions (equivalent to two major airline crashes per day). Jones contends that the high cost is primarily due to the AMA. If an MD feels competition from the local chiropractors, a naturopath, or a fellow MD of a different specialty infringing on his turf, he may complain to the AMA. A surgeon might complain of a general practitioner doing surgery or an obstetrician may complain about a family physician delivering babies. Jones argues that these complaints are reconfigured into safety concerns, such as "we are concerned that some in the chiropractic profession may be overstepping their areas of expertise and jeopardizing patient safety." If the targeted healthcare providers do not have a license to practice medicine from the AMA-controlled medical boards, the state attorney generals prosecute them for "practicing medicine without a license." If the group is licensed by the medical board, then its members are accused of practicing "below the standard of care." License revocation means not only loss of the doctor's livelihood, but a devastating blow both socially and professionally. Few physicians will go anywhere near that possibility. ==References== * Friedman, Milton & Rose (1979). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 0-15-133481-1. * Steinrich, Dale (2004). 100 Years of Medical Robbery. Ludwig von Mises Institute. [http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1547&id=69] * Jones, Henry (2005). How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care. Ludwig von Mises Institute. [http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749] Medical associations ==External links== * [http://www.ama-assn.org/ AMA home page] * [http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000068&Name=American+Medical+Assn AMA Political Contributions (Opensecrets.org)] * [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html Medical Control, Medical Corruption]
American Medical Association
== "AMA Limit" == I deleted the "AMA Limit" section entirely, as I am not aware of ANY such limit; AMA's own website doesn't mention anything of the sort. I believe that the entire idea of a "limit" on doctors is as fictitious as much of the original text of this article which has already been deleted by others. The only limits I'm aware of on the number of doctors are limits on the number of med-school enrollees, but that's set by whoever runs the med school. (For example, the enrollment limit of Arkansas' only med school, the College of Medicine of the state-run University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, is set by the Arkansas legislature.) Most importantly, any limit of that sort imposed by a private entity (such as the AMA) would be a blatant violation of U.S. antitrust laws, especially Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and would likely risk both criminal and civil action by the U.S. Justice Department. The AMA can influence Federal and, more likely, state regulators (which are outside the reach of the antitrust laws) to set limits, but those are the responsibility of Federal and state governments, not the AMA. --R. Brittain (not a doctor or connected to doctors in any way) == NPOV Issues == The last paragraph in this article needs some serious clean-up to meet NPOV standards. :I'm going to go ahead an excise the last paragraph entirely. It doesn't really provide any insight regarding the AMA and seems more fitting for an article regarding the relative merits of socialized health care. --User:Cvaneg 19:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I decided to chop out most of the second to last paragraph too as it seemed to mostly be an argument for socialized health care. --User:Cvaneg 19:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) I revised the criticisms section, which I do understand is supposed to have a POV, but it still read a little too much like a rant against the AMA. I also threw out some statistics that I don't really think illustrated much of anything. In particular, the rejection rate from a single school for a single year (Does not illustrate overall acceptance rates. i.e. Students who have been accepted to one school vs. students who were accepted to none), and the population vs. the number of med schools (A better statistic would be increase in doctor population vs. overall population.) --User:Cvaneg 02:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The article is definitely one-sided. The AMA is such an enormous and complex organization, yet 50% of the article is devoted to what Dr. Henry Jones "contends". User:Edwardian 20:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) These three sentences do not reflect the ''current'' political positions or policy of the AMA nor do they supply full context for their historical positions and policies: ''"The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine. In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. American Medical Ass'n. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943). Its vehement campaign against Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan"'' I have removed them. User:Edwardian 21:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''"In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President Bill Clinton."'' As above. User:Edwardian 21:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :An article can and should give information about notable aspects of the subject's past. The article on Robert Byrd has a whole section on his participation in the KKK, which clearly doesn't reflect his current position. If the AMA has changed its views on some of these subjects, feel free to add an update. If the article fails to "supply full context for their historical positions and policies", feel free to amplify on the context. So far I see nothing that shows the deleted information to be inaccurate or irrelevant, so I'm restoring it. Also, the AMA's demonizing of medical malpractice victims is the AMA's (extremely biased) opinion; it can reasonably be included but it must be attributed to the AMA, not stated as if it were fact. User:JamesMLane 22:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Regarding ''"If the AMA has changed its views on some of these subjects, feel free to add an update."'' I did add an update and amplify the context of what the AMA's current political positions are but you deleted it: :::''The AMA officially "continues to oppose attempts to cut Medicare funding or shift increased costs to beneficiaries at the expense of the quality or accessibility of care" and "strongly supports subsidization of prescription drugs for Medicare patients based on means testing".'' ::Regarding ''"So far I see nothing that shows the deleted information to be inaccurate or irrelevant, so I'm restoring it."'' As far as I am concerned, I see nothing accurate or relevant about the deleted information so it should be deleted. The burden is on the author to prove information accurate or relevant, not on me to prove it inaccurate or irrelevant. But I'm happy to take it line by line: ::1) ''"The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine."'' I just provided information regarding their official position which directly contradicts that assertion as inaccurate. ::2) ''"In the 1930s, it attempted to prohibit its members from working for the primitive health maintenance organizations that had sprung up during the Great Depression; its subsequent conviction for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act was unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. American Medical Ass'n. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943)."''Given that the title of the section is "Political positons" and that that assertion doesn't state anything about a "political position", it is irrelevant information in that section. Put it in "History" if you want. ::3) ''"Its vehement campaign against Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s included the Operation Coffee Cup supported by Ronald Reagan."'' Again, this is not a current political position. Put it in a section entitled "History" and we can add more to it there. ::4) ''"In the 1990s it was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform proposed by President Bill Clinton."'' So what is the specific political position that is being referenced with this assertion? That their position is not President Clinton's position? ::I think the biggest problem I have with this article is the minutia being presented to push some sort of agenda. It's akin to trying to build the President Clinton article around the statement, "He was the guy who got his c*ck sucked." (Sorry for the length of this reply.) User:Edwardian 00:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I don't mind at all the length of your reply. Instead of vaguely alleging bias, you chose to deal with specifics, which is the only way we can make progress but which of course makes for long comments (and responses -- as you're about to discover!). :::With regard to my suggestion that you should add an update if you thought it important: You didn't just add an update; you completely removed all the information about the AMA's political stance before the enactment of Medicare. By contrast, the language that you say I removed is still in the article, except that I reworded it slightly so as not to assert, as a fact, that the AMA's actual motive in supporting higher physician reimbursement is to help seniors. (I personally don't think that's the actual motive. I stated the objective fact that we know, namely that that's the point the AMA has publicly advanced as an argument.) :::*Your point #1: The AMA opposed public funding when it was an issue. You're correct that, now that they've lost that battle, they continue to act in their own self-interest, and since they have no hope of ending Medicare they try to milk it for what they can. Nevertheless, we should clarify the timing. I didn't write the "traditionally" passage, and I edited the article to say "With Medicare in place, however, ...." with the idea of conveying that the previous discussion applied to pre-Medicare years, but it can't hurt to spell that out more explicitly. I've essayed a rewording. :::*Your point #2: I think this is reasonably related to the AMA's overall stance. The action described doesn't involve an electoral campaign, but I'd consider it political. In any event, regardless of how this material should be organized, it's not appropriate to delete information entirely just because you think it belongs in a different section. :::*Your point #3: More clearly political, and the heading doesn't say "Current political positions". :::*Your point #4: Sorry, I don't understand your question. There was a political issue -- should the U.S. adopt Clinton's proposal? The AMA took the "No" position on that particular issue. The passage clearly says that. Do you mean you think it implies that the AMA opposed Clinton generally? :::As to your final comment: Because Wikipedia is a volunteer project, it often happens that an article is unbalanced. Participants contribute what they're interested in, not what some overriding editorial authority has decided is most important. We have articles on minor ''Star Trek'' characters, but some Emperors of China are still red links. The solution to that kind of imbalance is not to delete accurate information, but to supply what's missing. If the article on Clinton consisted solely of a reference to the Lewinsky affair, I wouldn't delete that reference. Instead, I'd add the material I considered important. Here's the relevant Wikipedia policy: ::::An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV ''work in progress'', not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. (from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance) :::In this instance, it's not even a case of presenting only one POV. The article doesn't give the arguments for saying why the AMA was wrong in earlier years; it simply reports what the organization did. Therefore, there's even less justification for subtracting from the article. If you think that the article would be better balanced if it had a "History" section that recorded all the good things the AMA has done, feel free to add such a section. User:JamesMLane 14:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Are you saying that I specifically allege bias rather than vaguely allege bias! Anyway… ::::*Point #1: There is no doubt that the AMA is acting in their self-interest, but some might express that POV differently: “Although the AMA has little hope of regaining what they lost in the battle against socialism, they continue to act to hold onto what freedoms are left in healthcare.” Although I appreciate the change you made to make the statement more accurate (i.e. ''“The AMA has traditionally opposed publicly funded medicine.”'' to ''“For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly funded medicine.”''), here are some points that I think should still be addressed: :::::*a) The term “publicly funded medicine”. Although most people are familiar with terms such as “socialized medicine”, “socialized healthcare”, “nationalized medicine”, “nationalized healthcare”, “single-payer health care”, and “universal health care”, somehow the choice to use “publicly funded medicine” was made here. I think that is a poor choice of words for a number of reasons: ::::::*i) The use of that term outside of Wiki is not well known. Try Googling “publicly funded medicine” and you’ll find that the hits that do not bring you back to Wiki are few and far between. ::::::*ii) Wiki articles should reflect terms in use outside of Wiki, not those primarily created, or whose meaning has been defined, within Wiki. (As above.) ::::::*iii) The term is vague and allows room for equivocation given that not even the Wiki definition states whether it applies to medical service for some citizens (e.g. Medicare or Medicaid) or medical service for all citizens (e.g. the NHS in the UK). So stating that the AMA opposes or opposed publicly funded medicine has no clear meaning. :::::*b) With that in mind, the AMA briefly supported compulsory health insurance around 1915 but since then has traditionally opposed any compulsory program that would lead to a nationalized healthcare system; but it has traditionally been in favor of tax-supported medicine for the poor or indigent. ::::*Point #2: I do think this would be better suited in a “History” section given that it does not reflect the AMA’s current position. To satisfy my own curiousity of the issue (which may reflect that of other readers), I also think a statement why they took the position they did would be warranted. ::::*Point #3: Nor does the heading say “Past political positions”. In my opinion, uninformed people referencing this article would want to know what the AMA is before they want to know what it was. I do think a discussion of the AMA’s initial opposition to Medicare is warranted, but I also think it should include substance (perhaps linking to the article of one of the aforementioned issues that have been hijacked…er, redirected to publicly funded medicine) more so than trivia (i.e. Operation Coffecup). ::::*Point #4: In my opinion, the article clearly states that the AMA opposed a position, but what that position was or why they opposed it is not clear. Let's work on this one. ::::Regarding your final comments, I think there is a difference between using neutral language and presenting a NPOV, and I do disagree that the solution to a successful Wiki article is to keep every possible factoid presented. Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance does also state: ''"Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important [emphasis mine]. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them."'' In my opinion, to get around that by stating that "it's all I know" or "it's a work in progress" is a bit weak. Still I will admit that it's difficult to know whether or not someone is presenting the only POV they know, or is blatantly violating the NPOV policy. User:Edwardian 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Several of your comments refer to information that could usefully be added to the article. I see no problem with factual additions, but I don't think the NPOV tag should stay on while we wait for the article to move closer to perfection. Would you agree to the removal of the tag? Nothing in here now is a "factoid" (in the sense of something so trivial it should be removed). :::::As to "publicly funded medicine", it is indeed a broad term. It covers socialized medicine but also more limited government programs, like Medicare (which couldn't appropriately be described with any of the alternatives you mention). Its Google ranking doesn't bother me. A term like "single-payer" is jargon that isn't familiar to everyone, but "publicly funded medicine" is just a description. Its meaning should be obvious to most people. Still, if it bothers you, what would you think about "the AMA opposed any government role in paying for health care"? User:JamesMLane 00:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I don't think the article yet presents a NPOV. I think the "Political positions" section inaccurately portrays the AMA's political history (although we're working on it) and the Criticism section, which comes across as though someone has an axe to grind, could be reduced to one sentence that says the same thing: "Critics assert that the AMA influences state medical licensing boards to limit the supply of licensed physicians in order to raise physician wages, which they claim leads to increased health care costs and a decreased quality of health care." ::::::I don't think "publicly funded medicine" is an description that accurately or specifically describes anything. If we are going to use that particular term, it should be noted again that the AMA has traditionally been in favor of tax-supported medicine (i.e. publicly funded medicine) for the poor or indigent. For that reason, for the article to state that "the AMA opposed any government role in paying for health care" is not true. User:Edwardian 04:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::(FYI, it was not I who made the large changes to the criticism section earlier today/yesterday. User:Edwardian 15:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with American_Medical_Association:
American_Medical_Association
American_Medical_Association
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
