The AMA yesterday was not pleased with how Obama staked out his position on malpractice. Obama claims he is looking for a compromise on the issue, but can we really trust him?
The Wall Street Journal questions Obama’s motivations in an editorial today:
The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability. But they’ve fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines. Mr. Obama showed again with his AMA speech that he’s willing to nod at the concerns of his political opponents and take media credit for brave truth-telling, only to dump his conciliation if it offends liberal interest groups.
Mr. Obama’s aides have openly told the press that he views medical liability as a “credibility builder” — that is, a token policy to keep the health-care industry at the bargaining table. Given that the only “bargain” that seems likely to emerge is another major step toward total government control of the health markets, the President seems to be counting on credulity.
David Brooks explains how Obama sees the current situation:
This brings us to the current stage: The Long Tease. Every player in this game has a favorite idea, and you are open to all of them. The liberals want a public plan, and you’re for it. The budget guys are for slashing Medicare reimbursements, and you’re for that. The doctors want relief from lawsuits, and you’re open to it. The Republicans want you to cap the tax exemption on employee health benefits. You campaigned against that, but you’re still privately for it.
You ran on a platform of hope and, boy, are you delivering. Every special interest in Washington lives in hope that they will get their pet idea incorporated into the final bill.
But when it finally comes time to pass legislation…
You want the scrum to be quick so that the bill is passed before some of the interests groups realize that they’ve been decapitated.
Chance of malpractice reform: slim.