Because it sucks when your patients can't afford to see you

What's the opposite of "surprised"? (Seriously, I can't think of one.) I am... unsurprised to read this (via Political Animal):

Among all the players in the health care debate, doctors may be the least understood about where they stand on some of the key issues around changing the health care system. Now, a new survey finds some surprising results: A large majority of doctors say there should be a public option.

When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.

Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.

Well, it's nice to see that I'm not alone.

I think the reason most doctors are in favor of a public option is that most doctors:

1) Want their patients to be able to afford health care, and

2) Have seen first-hand how the private insurance industry has failed.

It takes very few visits wherein patients tell you they've lost their insurance, and thus can no longer afford the medication they've been on for years, to realize that our current system simply does not afford reliable coverage. A public option will provide a choice for people who are dissatisfied with their current coverage, and a useful goad to the insurance industry to improve the service they provide. I understand perfectly why most physicians support it.

I am also unsurprised to read this:

Politicians in Washington turn to the AMA for support and guidance, even though fewer than a third of practicing doctors belong to the lobbying group.

The AMA's own position on a health overhaul has, at times, been hard to pinpoint. In July, it praised the bill that came out of the House of Representatives. That bill included a public option. But the AMA made it clear that what it really liked was that it eliminated cuts in doctors' fees from Medicare.

Of course that's what the AMA really liked. Because the AMA is a lobbying group for an industry, not for the public welfare. I find it wryly amusing that the AMA is somehow viewed as a medical authority, which it most certainly is not. (As I've said before, I've been proudly not a member for ten years!) The Medicare reimbursement schedule is weighted heavily toward procedure-based interventions, so physicians who specialize in providing said procedures are going to deploy their lobbyists to protect their interests.