December 26, 2009
Did You Know That Only 29% of MD's Belong to the A.M.A.?
Whoa…
Did you ever know that before?
The AMA and the media always portray the AMA to be the legitimate "speaking entity" representing practicing physicians.
If we look at these figures a bit closer, what about this:
29% of practicing doctors are members of the AMA, that means that 71% of practicing doctors are not members of the AMA.
That's a better than 2 to 1 ratio of non-members to members.
So when the AMA "speaks out" for practicing md's, they are actually only speaking out for the ~236,000 members, not the ~814,000 practicing doctors.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/200906150005
This makes me skeptical about how the media portrays the A.M.A. and gives me reason to question the validity of both the accuracy in the media and WHAT THE A.M.A. SAYS in public…
What gives the A.M.A. the right to speak for the ~578,000 practicing physicians who are non-members?
- Does this suggest that many practicing physicians do not agree with the AMA's agenda?
- And if they do agree, why aren't they members?
Silly me, I always thought that you had to be a member of the American Medical Association to be a doctor. It turns out it is really just a trade association - with a whole lot of clout.
Or is it?
So, more questions:
- Is the AMA actually supporting the huge medical and economic debacle being thrust upon a non-receptive public in Congress?
- Or is some other entitiy (or group of entities) merely trying to create that impression?
- And what do the ~814,000 practicing physicians actually think about it?
Doctors are generally good people - like most Americans. They work hard. They care. They feed their families and they do the best they can. Like every other profession they have good days and bad ones. Some are financially savvy and some are terrible business people. Most doctors are dedicated to their patients' well being.
There is a perception among of the American public that they can trust their doctors. So if an entity with an agenda can make it look like doctors support something, it lends credibility to the "thing they are supposed to be supporting", inadvertently the American people accept this subtle validation and feel safer about this choice.
While it is PR genius, it is not necessarily honest to do this.
A Sidebar Regarding Bureauspeak…
Just for the record, I tried reading both of the letters written by the A.M.A. to Congress, one to
Nancy Pelosi and one to Harry Reid. Quite honestly, they gave me headache trying to figure out what they meant.
When I was done reading them, I could not tell if the A.M.A. supports the legislation or not - maybe kind of it might and maybe not really it doesn't.
I know this. When I write a letter, I do my best to clarify what I am saying to the recipient. I am pretty sick of "bureau-speak", "double-speak", legal-ese, innuendo and political correctness and I think the vast majority of American taxpayers agree with me - regardless of some NYT poll saying otherwise..
Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you don't believe it - or it is not true in some way - don't say it. If it is true make it so everybody can understand what you are talking about.
This reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's 3 B's of Public Speaking: BE LOUD, BE BRIEF, BE SEATED.
Let's do a what if scenario and see what it looks like:
For purposes of argument, let's create this premise:
51% (a simple majority) of AMA members support the Health Care Bill. (Please note these figures are 'ball-park' estimates)
Let's look at the math…
In that scenario, the A.M.A. or the media could say a majority of A.M.A. doctors support the Health Care Bill
or
(.51)x(236,000)=120,360 doctors are in favor of the Health Care Bill.
Now given that premise, suppose the media reports that:
A majority of Doctors in the AMA are in favor of the Heath Care Bill in Congress.
Here's a reality check:
If it were actually a simple majority of all practicing physicians, it would require:
(.51) x (814,000) = 415,140 physicians to be in favor of the Health Care Bill.
It seems to me that the difference between the actual simple majority of practicing physicians (~415,000) and a simple majority of A.M.A. membership (~236,000) is a statistically significant difference where that number (179,000) is about 76% as large as the entire AMA membership.
This is not merely a statistical error, in my eyes. It is a deliberate construct and a distortion of the facts.
Are the media or the A.M.A. misrepresenting the facts when they make such a claim? Or are there special interest groups making it look like the A.M.A. is taking that postion?Isn't the media's real job to be a watchdog for the public's best interest and to dig for the truth no matter what they find?
Maybe that used to be the case, but apparently it is no longer…
You draw your own conclusion.
And further…
If the A.M.A. is not supported by a 'majority' of practicing physicians, which their own membership numbers would suggest, who is supporting them?
Here is my point with all this, and I am not gunning for the American Medical Association, if we listen to the media, it often sounds like the AMA is a very powerful organization. When you look at the actual numbers, it isn't.
In fact, according to a June 14th blog, http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906140001, about half of the paid members are students in medical school or retired doctors…
The AMA’s self-presentation is as a membership organization of doctors. But many doctors, of course, are not AMA members, and the group “inflates its numbers by giving reduced membership fees to medical school students and retirees, who make up about half of the dues payers.” … [T]he AMA has found that it can’t rely on membership dues to generate the kind of revenue that the AMA leadership is looking for. Instead, they’ve turned to corporate sponsorship—businesses with money to make by casting a veneer of medical respectability around their pursuit of profit find a relationship with the AMA to be useful.
…What they are on the hook for, however, is the pharmaceutical lobby which provides at least 20 percent of the AMA’s budget. And PhRMA is in the midst of a multimillion dollar advocacy campaign against many progressive health reform ideas.
The real question is:
Who wants it to look like:
- The A.M.A. is the primary "spokeperson" for doctors - and
- "DOCTORS SUPPORT THE HEALTH CARE BILL.."
My guess is that it would be an entity or group of entities that stands to benefit by the passage of the Health Care Bill. What do you think?
In my eyes, the real losers here in all this are the future generations of kids who will have to pay for all this.
The other losers are all the American people who believe in their government and who used to rely on the media for facts. It is fast becoming evident that neither are reliable resources for the truth and are rapidly becoming mere shadows of a fading viability of the past.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Filed under Health and Politics, blog, michael barrett by Michael Barrett


Maybe it's the vision of how 'they used to look' or how they've always 'wanted to look' - either way six pack abs have a pretty strong social appeal. So much so that abs machine manufacturers and late night tv abs machine guys have made a bucket of money selling the six pack.
I looked at Mike's course online for quite a while before I bought it. I'm about half way through it right now and I have to say that it is the first book that I have read in a long long time that makes sense to me about abs conditioning, the real facts. Based on my search and trials of different machines, training regimens and diets related to abs, I think I have adequate experience and background to make that assessment. Also I have at a times been in extremely excellent shape via martial arts.





