From: Devil's_Advocate on
Straight from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/physician-survey-health-reform-impact.aspx

"Physician Survey: Health Reforms Potential Impact on Physician Supply and
Quality of Medical Care

Mar. � Apr. 2010
Key Findings

Physician Support of Health Reform in General
� 62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be
implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping
overhaul that is in legislation.

Health Reform and Primary Care Physicians
� 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal
medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out
of medicine or make them want to leave medicine."
_____________________

"Deem and pass" tactics unconstitutional! This tactic is being called the
"unraveling of constitutional rule in the United States"!:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html

"�Slaughter Solution� could face legal challenge
Tags:

* Health Care Reform,
* Supreme Court,
* Nancy Pelosi,
* Louise Slaughter

* Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com Listen
* Print
* Comment
* Email
*
* Subscribe

By FRED BARBASH | 3/16/10 2:50 PM EDT
Text Size

* -
* +
* reset

The deem and pass 'Slaughter Solution,' named for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-
N.Y.)., would be vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts
say.
The 'Slaughter Solution' is named for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
Photo: AP

Digg/Buzz It Up

*
* Digg this Story!
* Buzz it up!
* Add to LinkedIn

POLITICO 44

The so-called �Slaughter solution� for enacting health care reform without
a conventional House vote on an identically worded Senate bill would be
vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts say.

No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the
�deem and pass� approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-
and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise
constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might
get interested, as it has in the past.

�If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into
constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, �Don�t do it,�� said Alan
Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who
has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the
watchdog organization Public Citizen. �What does �deem� mean? In class I
always say it means �let's pretend.� 'Deems' means it's not true.�

Any challenge likely would be based on two Supreme Court rulings, one in
1983 and the other in 1998, in which the court held that there is only one
way to enact a law under the Constitution: it must be passed by both houses
of Congress and signed by the president.

In the more recent of the two rulings, a 1998 decision striking down the
line-item veto, the court specifically said that the bills approved by both
houses must contain the �the same text.� Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.),
for whom the procedure under consideration by House Democrats is now named,
and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) filed amicus briefs arguing for the
result the court reached in the line-item veto case.

In the case of health care reform, the �Slaughter solution� would employ a
�deem and pass� or �self-executing� procedure whereby the House would craft
a rule deeming the Senate bill enacted, without a direct vote, for which
members could pay a steep political price.

The Senate bill and its text would not come before the House in the
ordinary way for an up-or-down vote but would be passed indirectly. While
this procedure has been used before, the Supreme Court has said in past
cases that repetition of an unconstitutional process does not make it
constitutional.

�You run the risk that it could be declared unconstitutional. ... If both
houses vote on the substance of everything, then I'm not troubled. But if
it looks like the House is never going to vote on the Senate bill, that�s
very troubling. I wouldn�t want to stake the entire bill on that,� said
Morrison, who authored the brief challenging the line-item veto signed by
Slaughter and Pelosi.

"Any process that we follow will first be carefully vetted by the House
Parliamentarian and consistent with the precedent and past practices of the
House," said a spokesman for the Rules Committee.

"And just as importantly, if we do pursue a plan where the rule includes
self-executing language, it should not surprise Republicans - who
themselves have eagerly used that process many times in the past."

The constitutional questions about the process intensified Monday thanks to
a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former U.S. appeals court judge Michael
McConnell, now a professor at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at
the Hoover Institution.

The �Slaughter solution,� he wrote, �may be clever, but it is not
constitutional.�"... [rest of article]




From: Devil's_Advocate on
FatterDumber& Happier Moe <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote :

>>
> If you made this kind of money with the present system you wouldn't
> want it changed either, and these numbers are from 2003, add about
> 20-30% to these amounts.
> * Brain/doctor:$450,00-$650,000
> * Anesthesiology: $306,964
> * Surgery, general: $255,438
> * Obstetrics/gynecology: $233,061
> * Psychiatry: $163,144
> * Internal medicine: $155,530
> * Pediatrics/adolescent medicine: $152,690
> * Family practice (without obstetrics): $150,267
> * ER doctors get paid 215,000+ a year (This is from the Medical

Oh NO! The doctors and hospitals MAKE MONEY! Revolt comrades!

Everyone ( even the doctors! ) should be paid $5 an hour for "socialist
justice"!

We cant have anyone <shudder> MAKING A PROFIT or a GOOD LIVING for the 8 or
more years they spent in medical school! Horrors!

Of course if the comrades get there way, who would want to be a doctor?
( as evidenced by that survey! )

You should go read a book called "We The Living". It would illustrate what
happens when all incentives are removed from a society by marxists.

From: Devil's_Advocate on
John Galt <kady101(a)gmail.com> wrote :

> You need to factor in the malpractice insurance and other overhead costs
> of running your own practice into those numbers for them to make any
> sense. An MD making $150K isn't taking home anywhere's near what a
> salesman making $150K is.

You shoudnt even have to defend them. Incentive is what drives a free
society. These people want gulags.



From: Devil's_Advocate on
FatterDumber& Happier Moe <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote :

>
> All I need to factor in is the houses and land I've seen the doctors
> buy and live in. It's very obvious most, and we are talking 95%, of the
> doctors make an exceptionally good living.

And for saving lives and health, why is that a problem?


From: Devil's_Advocate on
John Galt <kady101(a)gmail.com> wrote :


> We saw what happens when you do that in the USSR.
>
> Suffice to say that one would want to invest all their money in
> companies that make vodka.

You'll notice the growing pot legalization movement here ( not that I'm
against it - it's freedom ). They'll need people doped up to handle what
they're trying to "radically transform" America into.

"Elect progressive candidates for every office - for jobs, security,
democracy, and peace, vote Communist!" - "Progress and Democracy for Rhode
Island.", 1938

"I don�t want to punish anybody but there are an extraordinary amount of
people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make
everybody come before a properly appointed board and say every five or
every seven years, just put them there and say "Sir or Madam, will you be
kind enough to justify your existence?� If you�re not producing as much as
you consume or perhaps a little more then clearly we cannot use this big
organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive because
your life does not benefit us and it can�t be of very much use to
yourself."" - George Bernard Shaw, 20th Century Progressive icon

"I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going
back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century. I
consider myself a modern progressive." - HILLARY CLINTON, JULY 23, 2007