Was reading comments on your post yesterday and saw one physician had dropped AMA membership when they embraced ACA. Got to thinking how their membership was then only something like 18%, way down from what I'd guess was over 90% when they "embraced" the Medicare gravy train. And that means they now must be supported almost entirely by…
Was reading comments on your post yesterday and saw one physician had dropped AMA membership when they embraced ACA. Got to thinking how their membership was then only something like 18%, way down from what I'd guess was over 90% when they "embraced" the Medicare gravy train. And that means they now must be supported almost entirely by big Pharma and perhaps gov grants. And that is bad news for us patients (understand we are customers/clients now) because the AMA is the go to source for legislators involved in medical affairs. We have seen in the Covid fiasco just how well that works out for us.
I thoroughly appreciated your presentation to the Texas Senate Committee yesterday (I am a Texas resident). And thought it interesting that you and Dr. Boerwinkle who followed you both strongly urged Texas to create a state alternative to the CDC which has been in free fall for some time now and proved dangerously inadequate during the Covid flapdoodle. It has become increasingly evident physicians need another source to go to for medical advice rather than establishment medicine as represented by the AMA.
Thank you for all that you have done to keep us informed during these trying times and am sorry for all the grief you have had to endure doing so.
In order to touch the untouchable we need a plan. A decentralized one. A safe one.
Dr. Malone identifies the problem, but what is the solution? Our systems have been corrupted by regulatory capture and special interest groups - we can't expect the system to fix itself. We need a NEW idea. One that makes the old one obsolete.
If our problem is systemic corruption the best cure is radical FORCED TRANSPARENCY.
Don't forget, the AMA was started and owned by the Rothschilds, so if you think the AMA is a meaningful institution and will defend our medical care in this country, think again.
Good point. There are arguments on both sides for (in this case) socialized medicine. I freely admit to being of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I'm an example of tens of millions who would not have health insurance were it not for the ACA and especially, the subsidy. For all practical purposes I get nearly free health care. On the other side of the ledger, as you allude, when government pays for something there are always strings attached. That's probably unavoidable. In the case of the USA, this basically started in the 1960s with Medicaid/Medicare. It has only expanded with ACA & co. Often similar complaints can be found about government funding of higher education, with all the inevitable regulation that came along with that. Many generations ago, a university was primarily interested in whether a prospective student had academic ability, as well as the ability to pay tuition. Nowadays, it seems to be more important to make sure that enough Blacks, Hispanics or transgender space aliens, are being admitted.
Major risk: a decrease in the overall quality of the good or service, and for sure, a loss of freedom to (in the present case) for doctors and patients.
I suppose the logical extreme would be a complete takeover of medicine. That's certainly possible, but it'd be on a scale except maybe from a Cuba or a Soviet Union. At some point, a patient would literally be better off avoiding such a system entirely.
Was reading comments on your post yesterday and saw one physician had dropped AMA membership when they embraced ACA. Got to thinking how their membership was then only something like 18%, way down from what I'd guess was over 90% when they "embraced" the Medicare gravy train. And that means they now must be supported almost entirely by big Pharma and perhaps gov grants. And that is bad news for us patients (understand we are customers/clients now) because the AMA is the go to source for legislators involved in medical affairs. We have seen in the Covid fiasco just how well that works out for us.
I thoroughly appreciated your presentation to the Texas Senate Committee yesterday (I am a Texas resident). And thought it interesting that you and Dr. Boerwinkle who followed you both strongly urged Texas to create a state alternative to the CDC which has been in free fall for some time now and proved dangerously inadequate during the Covid flapdoodle. It has become increasingly evident physicians need another source to go to for medical advice rather than establishment medicine as represented by the AMA.
Thank you for all that you have done to keep us informed during these trying times and am sorry for all the grief you have had to endure doing so.
Thank you for watching and your comments!
where can we watch this ?
I’ve searched and unable to find. Read his presentation prior to but would love to hear!
It was the Texas Senate committee on health and human services. They are archived . Https://senate.Texas.gov/av-archive.php
I dropped my Consumer Reports subscription when they gave Obamacare a glowing review. You shall know them by their fruit.
I did too.
In order to touch the untouchable we need a plan. A decentralized one. A safe one.
Dr. Malone identifies the problem, but what is the solution? Our systems have been corrupted by regulatory capture and special interest groups - we can't expect the system to fix itself. We need a NEW idea. One that makes the old one obsolete.
If our problem is systemic corruption the best cure is radical FORCED TRANSPARENCY.
I purpose it is this: A Transparency Movement.
I beg all of you to read this:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/what-we-need-is-a-transparency-movement
Don't forget, the AMA was started and owned by the Rothschilds, so if you think the AMA is a meaningful institution and will defend our medical care in this country, think again.
Good point. There are arguments on both sides for (in this case) socialized medicine. I freely admit to being of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I'm an example of tens of millions who would not have health insurance were it not for the ACA and especially, the subsidy. For all practical purposes I get nearly free health care. On the other side of the ledger, as you allude, when government pays for something there are always strings attached. That's probably unavoidable. In the case of the USA, this basically started in the 1960s with Medicaid/Medicare. It has only expanded with ACA & co. Often similar complaints can be found about government funding of higher education, with all the inevitable regulation that came along with that. Many generations ago, a university was primarily interested in whether a prospective student had academic ability, as well as the ability to pay tuition. Nowadays, it seems to be more important to make sure that enough Blacks, Hispanics or transgender space aliens, are being admitted.
Major risk: a decrease in the overall quality of the good or service, and for sure, a loss of freedom to (in the present case) for doctors and patients.
I suppose the logical extreme would be a complete takeover of medicine. That's certainly possible, but it'd be on a scale except maybe from a Cuba or a Soviet Union. At some point, a patient would literally be better off avoiding such a system entirely.