> except the AMA

What an idle comment - where is the AMA on record saying that we should spend more on healthcare? Here's all the work they do to describe our increasing costs:

https://www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-research/policy-research-...

Also, when people invoke the bogeyman of 'AMA' they treat it like the lobbies that tech companies belong to. The AMA is not enriching physicians or hospitals (which have their own lobby!) but generally espouses consensus perspectives among doctors while making money from administering things like a residency program application system.

It's frustrating for someone like you to make this statement which feels quite divorced from any fact when you would not do the same about a security topic.

The AMA orchestrated the capping of residency slots through CMS/Medicare, which is the primary structural impediment to increased supply. Doctors in the US make integer multiples of what they do in Europe in part as a result of this.

I have to say: you can go either way on the AMA, I guess, but it's a weird hill to die on, isn't it? They're a trade group, not a public health organization. They exist for the benefit of their members.