Talk:American Medical Association

Current Political Position?

Are they still against public funded healthy care/nationalized health care? This article talks about their positions in the past, but i want to know what their current positions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.52.67 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does their funding come from? I just read a blurb saying that only 15% of the operating budget comes from memberships. Does the money come from a dark and sinister source, hmmmm? 98.220.18.55 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

comment by "Doc"

AMA membership numbers: Regarding the AMA membership numbers, it should be pointed out that the AMA automatically gives free memberships to all medical students, thus artificially inflating their membership numbers. Many med students don't even realize they've been made a member. In addition, in some states, in order to belong to the state medcial society, you are required to belong to the AMA as well. Subtracting out all the retired physicians, students and forced memberships, it becomes clear that the AMA probably represents less than 10% of practicing physicians. They are definitiely out of step with the philospohies of mainstream physicians, and giving medicine a black eye with their repeated opposition to meaningful health care reform. I will never join the AMA. Doc

"Doc". Thats not correct. The AMA, like all professional societies, offers discounted memberships to students, and residents. Perhaps your post would be better suited to a blog? Fuzbaby (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"AMA Limit"

Who foounded the AMA???? please someone tell me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.69.5 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Response: The AMA has a lot of influence and exerts a lot of pressure over the state legislatures which set the medical school enrollment quotas.

--E.J. (also not a doctor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.11.254 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Enrollment is limited by ability to balance education with clinical patient care...not as easy as it sounds; most schools like high enrollement because it equals high tuition, if its not regulated then education, or patient care, or both suffers.

James D (Doctor, but not of the MD variety)

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. --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. --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.) --DaveC 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". 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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. 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"? 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 a 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. Edwardian 04:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(FYI, it was not I who made the large changes to the criticism section earlier today/yesterday. Edwardian 15:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

-

Regarding my edits, please cite your sources so your statements have credibiliy. DrThompson 02:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If the original writer of that text ever happens to read this, I doubt that he/she will have any idea of what you are talking about. Edwardian 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

--Coolcaesar 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)== NPOV (the sequel) ==

It seems (at least most of) the POV issues have been resolved. Any objections to taking down the POV dispute flag?FRS 16:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Although I am not a fan of the organization, the article still seems overwhelmingly critical of the AMA. I think the flag should stay. Edwardian 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. I feel that the AMA has been more inept, if anything, than malvolent or destructive. --Coolcaesar 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted one unsourced dig at the AMA regarding social security and corrected the history about the chiropractor/antitrust case as well as links to the partisan chiropractor website. There are probably other things in the article that some will find overly critical to the AMA. IMO, however, it is a fair criticism made by reputable sources to observe the AMA, like any professional guild, has the effect, if not the specific objective, of limiting entry into the guild and competition with it. I hope we can get consensus on a NPOV version of this article soon.FRS 16:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the POV flag in the expectation (hope?) that edits made on 10/25 and 10/27 are enough too make the article sufficiently NPOV. --FRS 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I still think the article reflects a critical bias. I'm going to put up an RFC to get some more input on this. Edwardian 05:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here as a result of the RFC, and I believe the article is still terribly POV.

I question the Jones Steinreich article as well. I'd encourage anyone who believes JonesSteinreich to also read The Great Influenza by John M Barry to get some perspective. The state of medical education prior to the Flexner Report was deplorable.

The medical schools that were closed typically didn't have a single microscope; students weren't trained in ANY clinical work; some schools that were closed still taught bleeding as a useful treatment for influenza; schools that didn't require a college degree. Furthermore, Flexner was comparing U.S. Medical schools to their German counterparts and drawing extremely unflattering comparisons. HIs report should not be denigrated in such a way.

So, I'm certain that there are very few medical historians who would find fault with the Flexner Report. I don't know Dr. Jones's Steinreich's work, but he doesn't appear to be mainstream on this issue.

Furthermore, the denigration of Abraham Flexner in the article is unfair and quite spurious. For goodness sakes, at one point he was Albert Eisntein's boss.

Having said that, I have no knowledge or opinion about the "supply" of doctors. There may be something there. I just don't support the criticism of the Flexner report without mentioning the contents[1] of the report. This article is most definitely anti-AMA POV, IMO.Danlovejoy 05:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a mention of Flexner in the article--FRS 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My criticisms are of the Steinreich article, the #4 reference. They still apply. Danlovejoy 04:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Still POV

Per the discussion above, I have restored the POV tag. What need to be done to move this article toward neutrality? Danlovejoy 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Friedman critique et al. needs to stay here. My understanding was that Friedman's critique was of professional licensing in general; he also attacked lawyers at the same time. Furthermore, his theories have since been attacked due to newer research in economics and information science into irrational behavior and the asymmetrical distribution of information. --Coolcaesar 12:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be OK with taking out the second para of the "criticisms" section sourced to Steinrich, if the rest of the section is left intact. I think the criticism of Friedman and others that the AMA is a guild deserves space in the article, however. Of course, if there's a rebuttal to that criticism, we can discuss it and add a reference to it. FRS 16:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this section of the article should reflect general criticisms of the AMA, not the specific criticisms leveled by any one particular person. Otherwise, it is destined to become a compilation of opinions on the AMA by notable people. Given that Friedman and Steinrich (and even Jones) are essentially making the same point, that is "the AMA conspired/conspires to decrease competition in order to raise physician wages/fees". I feel that trimming down this section, while retaining the essential information, would make the article less POV.

Critics of the American Medical Association have asserted that the organization has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition (insert footnote links to Freidman, Steinrich, and Jones here). They assert that these actions have not only inflated the cost of healthcare in the United States, but have also have caused in decline in the quality of healthcare (insert footnote to Jones here).

--Edwardian 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with shortening the criticisms section 'proximately as you suggest. I think it should include links to guild and Friedman, however, like this

Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a government-sanctioned guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition (insert footnote links to Freidman, Steinrich, and Jones here plus [2]). They assert that these actions have not only inflated the cost of healthcare in the United States, but have also have caused in decline in the quality of healthcare (insert footnote to Jones here).

any objections? FRS 20:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, FRS! I disagree with the inclusion of the Steinrich article- it's pretty crazy. But if we decide it needs to be included, I'll live with it. Danlovejoy 22:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't think naming Friedman is necessary, I'm OK with the change including the reference to the Steinrich article. Below is the change, with footnotes from Friedman, Woods, Steinrich, and Jones. Anything else?Edwardian 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is fine. I don't have any problem taking out the Steinrich link, all those articles are from the same place (LvM Institute, which we should wikilink, by the way.) Thomas Woods also has a page here already.

Proposed change to "Criticisms" section (open to edits)

Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a government-sanctioned guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition [3] [4][5][6]. They assert that these actions have not only inflated the cost of healthcare in the United States, but have also have caused in decline in the quality of healthcare [7].

Request: government-sactioned?

I came to this article for one pice of info, and didn't really find it. How "government-sanctioned" is the AMA? Everything in the article seems to indicate it is a completely private lobbying organization, except I have two problems with that: (1) The criticism secion has a reference to it as "government-sanctioned," and (2) I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for me to practice medicine without some sort of AMA license. If there is a legal requirement for practicing medicine and it involves the AMA in some material way, I think it should be present in this article. Anyone more knowledgable want to help me out? NereusRen 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The AMA is like the ABA; it's totally voluntary (I have several relatives who work in healthcare). Licensing is done at the state level by Medical Boards. After getting the M.D., American physicians take an examination offered by the National Board of Medical Examiners, an independent organization which has liaisons with the AMA but is not part of it. The NBME then issues a certificate which physicians show to a state Medical Board to get a license to practice in that state. The advantage to this system is that unlike lawyers, American physicians can take one exam and then practice anywhere, while American lawyers generally have to take the essay portion of the bar exam (or the entire exam again, depending upon the state) for each state in which they practice. The reason is that American law varies widely from state to state (for example, some states have community property, which drastically affects how a lawyer deals with married clients), but medical practice is mostly the same everywhere.

There are also several other independent national boards which offer additional certifications for all the major medical specialties, which is why some specialists call themselves "board-certified." --Coolcaesar 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, physicians, after taking their NBME exams, cannot simply show the results to a state medical board to get a license. The licensing process is much more in depth, and many states require their own oral or written exams (example, CA, FL, ME, etc.) depending on the recency of a physician's NBME exam scores. The AMA is not government-sanctioned at all. It is simply a membership organization for physicians that serves as a federation of all other american medical organizations. It is run by a Board of Trustees through policy set by a House of Delegates that meets semi-annually. The House delegates are from state and specialty physician organizations around the country, and the meetings usually have upwards of 1000 participants. About 30% of physicians are members of the AMA, but nearly 100% are members of at least one of the organizations that have representation in the AMA. Drgitlow 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of interesting questions to be fleshed out. It is noteworthy to those outside the medical field the degree to which the AMA is like quasi-governmental organization (not just a policy/lobbying group) in that the AACOM accredits American allopathic medical schools, the NBOME licenses allopathic & osteopathic physicians, and the NRMP assigns residents their training assignments. These three groups are independent of the AMA, but are definitely closely linked to it, with AMA representatives sitting on their governing boards. It also seems relevant that there is a parallel, some might say competing, organization that also has the authority (state-granted) to fill these roles of AMA, namely the AOA (American Osteopathic Association.) The powers of these two organizations largely overlap, and at various times they have clashed, as they did in California in '68 when the AMA tried to shut down the AOA by converting all DO's to MD's.

The figures quotes by Drigitlow are surely incorrect because ~20% of US physicians are DO's, not MD's. The number "100% physicians are a members of an organization with AMA representation" is surely referring to only allopathic physicians, excluding osteopaths, which are recognized by all 50 states as having the same practice rights as MD's.OsteopathicFreak 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Many D.O.'s are members of organizations with AMA representation so the above doesn't disprove Drigitlow. SHJohnson 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) And according to Wikipedia on "Osteopathic Medicine", there were only 49,500 osteopaths in the United States in 2002, so osteopathic proportion is slightly above 5%, not 20%.SHJohnson 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I intend no insult toward my osteopathic colleagues. The specialty society of which I'm a member has both MDs and DOs as members, and we have a delegate seat at the AMA where we represent our osteopathic members just as we do our allopathic members. Drgitlow (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section

In both American Medical Association and Joe Schwarz, I am removing the section regarding the “postcard controversy” as an unverifiably notable incident.

In response to receiving a mailing that he interpreted as a slur against peace activists, Terry Calhoun explained in a web column that he posted about the experience in American Medical Association and Joe Schwarz; he admittedly characterized these actions as an empowering “'political' use” of Wikipedia. Calhoun, who can easily be verified as User:Splendid by examining Calhoun’s statements and the edit histories of the Wikipedia articles to which he referred, also placed links to another website he maintains, http://splendid.backpackit.com/pub/689592 , into both articles. Adding such a personal experience violates various Wikipedia policy (i.e. certain subsections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including “not a publisher or original thought” and “not a soapbox”) and guidelines (i.e. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:External links’s “Links normally to be avoided”).

The only independent reference to this story is an article in the Ann Arbor News/Mlive.com which came on the heels of a press release from a group of peace activists in Michigan; the article extensively quotes that group and Calhoun. -AED 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Organization

Very little is said about the actual organisation - what are the requirements for membership, the number of members, organizational stucture etc. - Matthew238 03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Universal Health Care debate not represented

There seems to be a pretty serious omission around Universal Health Care (or whatever term you want to use, though I think the definition at Universal Health Care is pretty uncontroversial). What I've heard is that the AMA doesn't support a system (UHC) that is used by all the other wealthy, industrialized nations and which would ensure medical coverage for all people. I mean, I'm no doctor, but I would like for this to be explained in an NPOV way by anyone, pro- or anti-AMA, in the article instead of being elided. Any takers? Laser813 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current AMA campaign is 'healthcare for all'. I believe they don't support a single government payer system, but that is very different than the general concept of universal healthcare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

History section

This section was copied directly from the AMA's website and was thus a copyright violation. I have removed the offending text but left the section because I feel it should remain in the article (with a complete rewrite). If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions

The first paragraph of this sections states

"For much of the twentieth century, the AMA opposed publicly-funded health care. When the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was passed in the U.S., the AMA supported a federal law, but recommended cannabis to be added to the Harrison Narcotic Act.[citation needed]"

Can someone please provide a citation verifying the fact that the AMA supported a federal law regarding cannabis? I was under the impression that they stood in opposition to that law. Please correct me if I am wrong by supplying the source of that statement, otherwise it is subject to deletion after a reasonable period of time remaining unsourced. JS747 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on membership

I could be remembering completely wrong, but I seem to recall an era when the AMA did not admit non-white physicians, with the result that other groups developed. If I recall correctly, this was in the mid-1900s. --Dan (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you have a source? 2. Would it be any different that every other professional organization during that time period, i.e. even if true would that make them unique in that way? If you can say yes/yes then feel free to add it to the article.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have a source, just a fuzzy memory. Was hoping someone would jump in and confirm this. --Dan (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The AMA did not officially bar non-white physicians, though their long-time editor and effective leader Morris Fishbein was hostile to "schwartzers": but membership of the AMA depended on membership of an affiliated county or other local medical society, and these were, especially in the South, whites-only. Without local medical society membership, black physicians were barred from most hospitals. The local societies remained free to impose a "color bar" until the AMA's annual meeting of 1968.

References:

1. Medicine: Eliminating the Color Bar. Time Magazine, 28th June 1968 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841338,00.html

2. AMA Moves to End Discrimination. JAMA. 1968;205(1):A27-A46 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/205/1/A27

3. Medicine: The Plight of the Black Doctor. Time Magazine, 23rd August 1968 http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838622,00.html

NRPanikker (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems that would be general criticism of local medical societies in the United States though. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the local medical societies which excluded blacks during the apartheid era were the branches of the American Medical Association, not the branches of the National Medical Association. NRPanikker (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Political Position Section

This section does not appear to be neutral. It reads somewhat like an ad and it like the article is lacking verifiable citations and references for much of the article. Lets discuss and come up with a solution --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What would you propose? Probably best to start by identifying reliable sources and go from there. MastCell ^Talk 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also point out which specific parts you mean? I see some likely candidates, but if you identify what you are speaking of then it'll be easier to look for references to that particular point. Fuzbaby (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly don't appreciate my tag being removed nor rude change summary, no one has the authority to tell anyone not to tag something NPOV. Give me a moment and without being political and neutral I will point out the clear lack of a NPOV and the definite lack of references on this article. By the way you take double steps DOC? In my opinion anyone who works in the medical field and may be a member of the AMA has no business disputing NPOV--0pen$0urce (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "double steps", but from your general tone and approach I doubt that it's an attempt to seek middle ground or consensus. I've removed your tag-bombing; in my opinion, it's borderline disruptive. Most of the items you tagged are in fact sourced. For example, you cite-tagged every item in the "Timeline". These are sourced to the AMA's website, and the link is included at the end of the section text. It's generally considered excessive to put a citation after each sentence, and preferable to include a single citation at the end of a lengthy passage drawn from a single source. Similarly, you tagged the sentence: "Ronald Numbers' 1978 book, Almost Persuaded: American Physicians and Compulsory Health Insurance, 1912-1920, provides an account of the AMA's policy positions during this early period." This is hard to understand, since the source is mentioned in the very sentence which you tagged as "unsourced".

More to the point, it's clear that you didn't bother to look at whether the material was actually sourced before adding dozens of tags, which is concerning in that it makes it a bit harder to assume that your motivation here is to improve the article. No one is preventing you from explaining your concerns in civil and concrete language. Please do so. There is no deadline, and the article hardly needs dozens of poorly-conceived cite tags this very second. Allow me to suggest that people here will listen to a reasonable, civil argument based on Wikipedia's guidelines, and that your time might be best spent making such an argument rather than abusing cite tags. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also according to wikipedia policy, references have to be from reliable 3rd party sources, the AMA website is not 3rd party and further creates a NPOV dispute. --0pen$0urce (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from a webiste of a company or organization are often used in articles, as well as others from outside sources. Whether it can be used or not depends on what its used for, there is no inherent npov problem with using AMA sources to give information about their own organization, especially if it is in reference to their official positions (in which there is no better source) or their history. I've still yet to see anyone point out specific problems of npov that concern them, other than just making glittering generalizations on a talk page...Fuzbaby (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that using a subjects webpage to "fill" reference requirements is reliable 3rd party accordinance with wikipedias policy. 62% of the meager 12 references are from ONESOURCE, AMAs website, NOT 3rd party, sorry. Also Fuzbaby and Mastcell, are either affiliated with the AMA? You seem to police this page and tend to remove anything added that is not positive towards the AMA, regardless if it factual or not. I already knbow Mastcell is a Doctor and probably AMA member, are you. If so may I advise your intensions create a rather considerable NPOV issue with this article. My reasons for being here are simple , I came to find out about the AMA a found a lot of information lacking references and the few there are, well they come from One Soure, AMAs website, which also is not 3rd party and could be a NPOV dispute.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered looking for additional reliable sources and bringing them here for discussion or incorporation into the article? I know it's a lot more work, and less fun, than leveling ad hominem attacks left and right, but on the plus side, you might be taken more seriously if there were any inkling of a reason to believe you cared about improving this article. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my apology for questioning affiliation. To be frank one editor should not have to hunt down all the references that are needed and therefore contradicts the removal of the onesource tag. That tag lets any potential contributors know immediatly that this article only has 5 3rd party references which I am about to check and see if they are reliable as I already one references yesterday that was not. I don't undersatnd how instead of seeking references, that are clearly lacking, which apparently other editors don't agree on this. I think a dispute resolution is in order. The dispute is there is a disagrement on the numbered of references, verifiable, and whos responsibilty it is to find references. I would like to challenge all un-sourced material on this page for removal. Instead of making policy violation accusations, and telling other editors to find sources, contribute and find sources yourself. Any un-sourced material can be challeneged and deleted. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Also please see conflict of interest. While policy violation accusations and links to policy artciles are just swell. It would be more productive to provide content. Clearly there is a disagreement here about what constituits a reliable source, and un-sourced material."--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone stopping you from finding better references? I'm encouraging you to do that. The problem is that while you seem interested in complaining, tagging, and attacking other editors, you don't seem interested in actually fixing the article. Challenging and removing unsourced material is fine, but your tag-bombing spree made clear that you either don't understand or don't bother to check which material is sourced and which is unsourced. Do you see my concern? MastCell ^Talk 09:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag bombimg, really, tag bombing would be someone who just did what is reffered to as drive-by tagging by wikipedia, references tags are actually requests to Cite Sources. Not only am I request more references, but I am clearly providing input on the talk page before my actions and discussing them. I disagree with tag removal, if the tag is requesting Encyclopedic information be cited and verified.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is textbook abuse of citation tags, and textbook disruptive editing. You didn't even bother to look before tagging, since as I pointed out above, much of the material you tagged was directly and appropriately sourced. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Article issues Tag

One Source

Just because sources "Often" used as you claim, does not mean they are within the scope of Wikipedia references policy. I do not agree on the NPOV, citing material from main subjects webpage for an article, is not 3rd party and is not neutral. If the refs are general information that is fine, but glorification's, controversies, encyclopedic, opinions, ectera are not neutral and they are not 3rd party. Lastly attacking people who are volunteering and providing input is also against wikipedia policies see Dispute Resolution,Neutral Point of View ,No Original Reasearch, and lastly and most importantly Verifiability. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability 2.1 Reliable sources. Then we can proceed with improving this article. Two issues that appear need to be addressed here, 1. Lack of reliable 3rd party references. Any unsourced material can be challenged and deleted. Sources have to be from a reliable 3rd party, not solely or in majority from AMAs website. I am fine with general Organization information, but the bulk of the article especially opinions need not to be from AMAs website. 2. Neutral Point of view, this ties in the sources, AMAs website is not 3rd party and therefore creates a neutral point of view dispute. There is a considerable amount of unsourced material on this page, I am therefore tagging the page one source since clearly we have discussed over a reasonable period of time, and 7 out of 12 (62%)external references are from one source, AMAs website, this article needs more reliable 3rd party sources and therefore this request for sources tag is reasonable and productive. Please do not remove tag without reasonable discussion or considerable additional of references that are not from AMAs website. The fact that there is only 12 references on an article this size needs to also be addressed. I have seen shorter/smaller articles with dozens of references. Also a lot of the repeat references are also pointing to the 7 that are from the AMA website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs)

I'm going to remove the tag for several reasons. First, the article cites several independent, reliable sources, and is not based entirely on the AMA website, so the tag is inaccurate. More importantly, you have made absolutely no attempt to fix whatever issues are bugging you. Your contributions to this topic on Wikipedia consist solely of unhelpful, borderline disruptive, and often inaccurate tagging, with a side helping of personal attacks against other editors. Since you're citing policy, take a look at the one against personal attacks. You've already linked our dispute resolution policy, so I'll assume you've read it - now consider following it. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WOW, 62% of the references are from One Source, please stop policing this article. Help find references. Undoing your unjustified removal of my clearly justified tag. Any unverified material can be deleted by the way.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Funny I knew either of the 2 people who have been removing justified tags would be here withing 24 hours to remove my tag, I KNEW IT!. There needs to be more than 5, 3rd party refernces on a page this size sorry. You keep making accusations, call me disruptive, now I am making personal attacks?, so your accusations are not attacks. Instead of just removing a completely justifiable OneSource tag, which I explained with the 62% of the references being from just that OneSource. Maybe contribute to the article itself. There is a lot of unsources material on this page and a whole lot of OneSourcing from also not a 3rd party but the subjects webpage, NPOV please. We need admin intervention I think. Tagging this page until references are able to be found, this is allowed by the way. PLEASE STOP REMOVING TAGS AND FINGER POINTING, THIS PAGE NEEDS 3rd PARTY REFERENCES OR UNVERIFIED MATERIAL NEEDS TO BE DELETD. Thank You.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC) I clearly explained my intentions of why I came here and why I am trying to repair this page, not that I have to. What is the reason for page policing, false accusation, randomly making claims of policy violations, and attacking people that make changes? Personally this article needs to be thinned out, whoever added a lot of the information on this page didn't take the time and effort to cite there sources from a reliable 3rd party. I highly disagree that 5, 3rd party references is sufficient. There are much smaller articles that have considerably more references. Please explain where I made a personal attack other than inquiring if certain editors were affiliated with the articles subject. I have felt attacked since the first time I tried to improve this article. AGAIN I ASK THAT the ONESOURCE TAG PLEASE NOT BE DELETED until additional references are found for much of this article from reliable 3rd party sources, again not AMAs website. If you dispute my tag, please follow dispute resolution guidelines, I disagree that 5 references from 3rd party sources is sufficient for all the material on this article. --0pen$0urce (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war over the tag with you, because that would be beyond lame. Don't pretend you're "repairing" the page with edits like these, though. If you feel that there are insufficient third-party refs, find. some. more. I don't know how to say that more clearly. It would help if you'd comment on content rather than contributors, but whatever.

How about this: since you're unhappy with the sourcing, go ahead and take a week or two and look for better sourcing. If you find some, bring it here and we'll work together to incorporate it. If you look but don't turn anything up, then we'll talk about restructuring the article to lessen the reliance on the AMA's website. If you don't lift a finger to improve the article but continue on your current unimpressive course, then I'll remove the tag. MastCell ^Talk 09:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually while you were writing this I added a reference and removed one that I verified was incorrect because it was a pdf for a different unaffiliated organization. The tag is to inform all potential editors that this article requires more references from reliable 3rd party sources. Why does the responsibility of finding references fall on me, I can just delete unverified, unsourced material as well, but the tag is more appropriate. This article falls into 3 categories by the way Category:Articles lacking reliable references, Category:All articles with unsourced statements, Category:Articles with unsourced statements. So instead of policing other editors how about you contribute or do you have a conflict of interest dispute that's disallows you to provide references. I think any unverifiable claims on this article should be deleted, which is well within several Wikipedia policies that I am sure will be cited instead of, I don't know verification of information. I didn't know this was a war, its just an article that needs cleanup. By the way please stop giving orders to other editors, your not an administrator, and I don't believe you have such authority. Lets Focus on content instead of other editors, thanks.--0pen$0urce (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am an administrator. Your assertion to the contrary displays the combination of inattention to factual detail and aggressive posturing that I've found so difficult to deal with. Given the content of your posts, your sudden request to "focus on content instead of other editors" strikes me as more posturing, but please prove me wrong. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great, your an administrator, lets work on this article, kind of surprised your focused so much on this particular article, I found the administrator conduct article enlightening. Anyway I am going to only comment on content rather than contributors as you should probably attempt yourself. Again I don't have to feel obligated to prove, explain, or well fulfill any of your demands, being an administrator doesn't mean being a boss, general, ect., its means there are certain privileges that users do not have and a certain higher standard that is also expected. Can we discuss content please. This discussion is under the heading of one source. Like I have already stated before to much of this article relies on the AMA website, while it appears the appropriate content is not referencing one source there is another problem, lack references. This is actually what caught my attention originally, what appears to be a lot of "opinionated" information with no 3rd party reliable sources to support it. I am looking for sources and hopefully that appropriate tag will get other editors involved--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Removing One Source tags, I believe this tag is more appropriate after further discussion. Primary Sources--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

I have already found 1 citation/reference that was erroneous, I did have to fact tag. Plan on reviewing all these citations and adding more or deleting those that cannot be Verified. This article clearly is lacking references and it needs assistance from the community, not drive-by tag deletion without discussion. Removing/adding a tag without discussion is not constructive and all.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So first you placed about 30 citation tags. And now that you're actually taking the time to read the article, you've found 1 citation issue so far where a tag was justified. Do you see the problem? Read the article first; tag second. MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another need to comment on content rather than contributors. So your making another accusation that I didn't read the article and randomly placed fact tags all over it? Really, your accusing of me doing all sorts of things, just because I disagree that an article this length has sufficient references. Take a look at this random article Owen Benjamin, 8 references all of them look reliable, only 2 appear to be from a site the subject is affiliated with and those references are appropriate. There is a lot of un-sourced information on here that can be challenged and deleted. The original editors should have taken the time cite there sources instead of just "shotgunning" information on here without references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

There appears to be editors who have a conflict of interest and have some vested interest in the appearance of this article regardless if it is verified content from a neutral point of view or not.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. You've edited this article and talk page about as much as I have; you appear to have few other active interests on this project beyond the AMA; and your edits seem to sacrifice encyclopedic concerns for the goal of making the article more negative. One might conclude that you have a conflict of interest. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"...your edits seem to sacrifice encyclopedic concerns for the goal of making the article more negative". Okay a couple of points here, again lets try to follow Wikipedia guidelines and comment on content rather than contributors, second please provide an example where this "goal" making this article more negative is prevalent, tagging is not vandalism or negative. Tagging an article is actually a request for help from the community with a particular issue with article. There is a lot of content on here that even Google is having challenges finding. I will chip away at it, but I agree there is no hurry to remove tags, especially in only a few individuals are willing to work on the article. I have no direct or indirect affiliation with anything AMA. Nor any vested interested other than seeing this article fall within guidelines and not be bullied or attacked in the process. Some editors appear to be taking this article a little to personal, which is where the conflict of interest comes in. I recommend reading the conflict of interest, quite insightful if I don't say so. If an editor is affiliated with the AMA or has opposing views of the AMA there input on this article should be proceeded with discretion. --0pen$0urce (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Ok so you didn't like a source I found that's umm great, now how about instead of bickering with me, help find more references, I don't believe it matters that the reference I found wasn't from a "positive" article and in fact your ref change adds some weight to the conflict on interest dispute and by the way your reference is 4 years old you replaced a 2 month old reference about membership which can and will change over time with an older one, is that really best practice? I definitely have strong opinions on your motives after that action, however I will leave my opinions to myself, but again lets comment on content rather than contributors. To be honest I have felt bullied the second I dared to contribute to this page and I am asking other editors to back off, and AGAIN comment on content rather than contributorsInstead of policing me, police this article. This whole thing raises some serious concerns but again comment on content rather than contributors--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By claiming editors who don't agree with your editing style have a coi, you are per se commenting on other editors. I do agree that, as already mentioned, you have an obvious slant in your editing that indicates a coi. I think the main problem editors have had is that your contributions to date (not all) have shown a lack of usage of the neutral point of view (agenda pushing), and some edits that were straight out vandalism, followed by misquoting WP policy to veteran editors. At all points it appears that editors encouraged you to constructively contribute to this page.Fuzbaby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Veteran" editor Fuzbaby I have requested and will politly request again comment on content rather than contributors.Thank you.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is when its too bad you can't see the "eyes roll" through a computer screen. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will ask yet again comment on content rather than contributors, please discuss why you feel intensive need to remove conflict of interest Talk without discussion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources

This article is interesting and when I found sources article, it came together. Nuff said, This article needs references...I will slowly work along and fact tag with caution anything I feel needs references or tag if I cannot find referees. Tags are useful when there is a some work to be done on an article and one can't and shouldn't have to go at it alone, the community should contribute as a whole and the tags let them know what is needed.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette and No personal Attacks

To continue to refer to me in a libelous and defamatory manner by making endless accusations without merit and then going as far as to call me obstreperous. This in my opinion is harassment and not conduct becoming of someone who is a administrator. Lets discuss the article please and use better Etiquette.--0pen$0urce (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to raise the issue of my conduct in any of our dispute-resolution venues if you feel it necessary. Incidentally, Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits using legal threats to try to intimidate other editors, as you are doing here. Please retract your accusations of libel and defamation. Or, if you seriously believe that legal action is warranted, then please refrain from editing Wikipedia while you pursue it. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)