With the general election between a single Democrat and Republican about to begin, the American Medical Association has taken a good look at insurance mandates--you know, the issue of whether people should be required to buy health insurance.

GOP presumptive nominee John McCain opposes mandates. The Democrats' virtually-presumptive nominee Barack Obama supports mandates on children but not adults.

So if indeed it comes down to McCain vs. Obama, the contrast between positions will not be as stark as it would be in a McCain vs. Clinton contest.

But what do America's organized doctors, who are assembling a huge warchest to support health insurance reform, think?

The AMA wants a mandate--of sorts. According to the recent article on the AMA's website,

"Part of the AMA's health system reform plan calls for requiring people earning more than 500% of the federal poverty level -- $52,000 for individuals -- to obtain at least catastrophic coverage. Those who don't comply would face tax penalties. People earning less would be subject to the requirement only after receiving tax credits or vouchers for buying insurance. 'It's difficult to force somebody who can't afford health insurance to purchase it,' said Joseph M. Heyman, MD, AMA Board of Trustees chair-elect.

So if the AMA has its way, most working, middle-class-and-above Americans would be required to have insurance or face a penalty. Those who make less face a mandate once they get government subsidies.

Depending one's viewpoint, that's heavy-handed, self-interested recommendation from the doctors' lobby--or an admirably progressive way to ensure virutally every American has some insurance coverage.

So if Hillary Clinton is no longer in the race, it will fall to. . .the American Medical Associaton to carry the idea of mandates into the general election.

Like what you're reading? Get email notifications when Craig Stoltz posts, or get updates on Facebook, iGoogle, your personal blog and more!