Last Wednesday, the American Medical Association announced plans to publicly oppose President Obama’s health care reform. The AMA, a powerful 250,000-member physicians’ group, is against a government-sponsored health care option, which it claims will restrict patients’ choices by driving out private insurers. It went on to say that a public plan would also lead to “an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in now, hence the need for an alternative.

More than 44 million Americans are uninsured and another 38 million of us are underinsured. Those of us who fall into these categories often forgo medical appointments, preventive care, screenings, and follow-up visits, which result in more late-stage diagnoses and worsening medical conditions. In turn, this places a significant financial burden on the system.

When uninsured Americans get sick, for example, they head straight to the emergency room. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the uninsured are 30 to 50 times more likely to be hospitalized for unavoidable conditions. And about 20 percent of uninsured Americans rely on emergency rooms as their primary source of care.

This increasing dependence on emergency-room medicine, coupled with the poor management, administrative costs, and inefficiencies of our current health care system, is costing everyone. Those without insurance end up paying more upfront, if they can pay at all, while folks with coverage are watching their premiums rise (between 5 and 10 percent in 2009, experts estimate). What’s even more disturbing is that the United States spends more on health care than most industrialized nations, yet we have one of the highest numbers of uninsured residents. Clearly, what we got ain’t working.

The president unveiled his plans for health care reform while on the campaign trail, and his critics wasted no time tearing it apart. They referred to his government-sponsored option as “big brother-esque,” yet offered little in the way of alternatives. What do these folks propose that we do about the tens of millions of Americans without health insurance? Or the rising costs for people with coverage? Instead, those opposed to the idea of universal care, such as the AMA, throw around terms like “socialized medicine” in a poorly veiled attempt to incite fear in Americans who support free-market capitalism. It’s as if the Obama critics want us to believe that the communist fairy is just waiting in the lurks to turn our nation into a government-run camp.

As far as the AMA is concerned, that seems to have been its M.O. from way back. Since the ’60s, the group has been vocal about its opposition to government-involved health care regulation. According to a story published last week, in 1961, the group attempted to block Medicare, calling it a varying form of totalitarianism. Word? Medicare? That program that provides health coverage for the elderly and the disabled? Wow.

More recently, during the Clinton administration, the AMA allegedly spent $3 million to defeat Hillary Clinton’s universal health care proposal, opting instead to support Republican-backed policies that called for cuts in Medicare spending. And these are doctors we’re talking about here.

But today is a different and far more difficult time for our nation. Our economy is in bad shape, and a high unemployment rate means that people are rapidly losing their company-sponsored insurance. In 2007 and 2008, for instance, one in three Americans went without coverage at some point, a startling statistic that proves our all-or-nothing health care system is zero-sum game. It requires all of us to fend for ourselves amid exorbitant costs and red tape, while big companies and big organizations try to convince us that nothing good will come from a government alternative. Other nonsupporters say universal coverage will result in patients waiting for months to see a physician and that the quality of care would be subpar.

How come our only option is to keep what we have or embrace a socialist regime? This is America we’re talking about here. I’m certain that we can do better than that. What about a cross between an individual and  government-sponsored policy? Something that might resemble a public-private partnership, a plan that allows those with insurance to keep what they have but gives those who can’t afford individual care some sort of coverage. Oh, wait, that’s what Obama is proposing, and his plan may be the most viable for millions of Americans.

The president is planning to address the AMA today, and I’m eager to hear what its members have to say.  So far, they haven’t said much.