Healthcare Reform Thread II

[DinoDoc]

Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters nationwide finds 38% still oppose repeal, including 32% who strongly oppose it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

[Drake Tungsten]

It's not going to be repealed, no matter how much the public hates it.

[rah]

I agree but maybe those that passed it will be.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, Stupak already dropped out of his race and Reid is all but finished in Nevada. Ben Nelson might get the boot in 2012, but a lot can happen in the next two year to save him. Pelosi is safe; the best you can hope for is that she's the Minority Leader after November instead of the Speaker.

[Dinner]

I wouldn't bank on Reid not winning especially since there is a tea bagger running against the Republican candidate who will likely split the right wing vote. Also Stupak was already pretty right wing because he had to be since he was in a red district so really his seat changing hands won't change much of anything.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wrong, as usual.

Sue Lowden has established herself as the far-ahead GOP front-runner in Nevada's U.S. Senate race and the Republican most likely to beat Sen. Harry Reid, even with a Tea Party candidate on the Nov. 2 general election ballot, according to a new poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Six weeks before early primary voting starts, Lowden's closest GOP rival, Danny Tarkanian, has failed to catch fire with Republican voters in the past few months, the survey found. Meantime, Sharron Angle lost some conservative support, putting her out of the running along with two other long-shot contenders, investment banker John Chachas and Las Vegas Assemblyman Chad Christensen.

As for Reid, the poll shows the Democratic incumbent's popularity dipping to a new all-time low with 56 percent of registered Nevada voters saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the senator, while about four in 10 people say they would vote for him on Election Day -- not enough to win.

"Reid is hoping third party candidates, particularly this Tea Party guy, will draw enough votes that he can win, but I don't see that happening," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the survey. "Everybody knows who Reid is, and voters don't have a good opinion of him." ...

In a general election matchup with three named candidates -- including Scott Ashjian, who has filed under the Tea Party of Nevada banner -- the new April poll showed:

■ Lowden would win with 46 percent of the vote compared with 38 percent for Reid, 5 percent for Ashjian and 11 percent undecided.

■ Tarkanian and Reid would end in a dead heat with 39 percent of the vote each, while Ashjian would pick up 11 percent of the vote and with another 11 percent undecided.

In the previous February survey that tested Reid in a matchup against an unnamed GOP nominee and an unnamed "Tea Party" candidate, the senator came out ahead with 36 percent of the vote compared to 32 percent for the Republican, 18 percent for the Tea Party candidate and 14 percent undecided.

But the latest survey shows Ashjian won't likely make much of a difference in the race.

Nevada voters who recognize his name don't like him much: 1 percent had a favorable opinion of him compared with 13 percent who had an unfavorable opinion. Another 27 percent were neutral and 59 percent didn't recognize the Las Vegas businessman's name.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/lowden-leads-republican-pack-90559809.html

[Ecofarm]

I wish the tea party was liberal socially, but then they'd just be libertarians.

They're basically the economic fringe of fiscal republicans, right?

[DinoDoc]

It's not going to be repealed, no matter how much the public hates it.

Not until 2012 at least.

[Japher]

Yeah, I always classify myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal...

old ppl still suck though

[Drake Tungsten]

Baffled by Health Plan? Some Lawmakers Also Seem None Too Clear

WASHINGTON — It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans? ...

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html

What a great piece of legislation...

[DinoDoc]

I wonder if there's a lawyer willing to force Congress to go without insurance.

[Darius871]

I wonder if there's a lawyer willing to force Congress to go without insurance.

On what possible assertion of standing? Frothingham v. Mellon rules out generalized grievances in one fell swoop, and Flast v. Cohen's very narrow taxpayer exception hardly applies, so it'd take a ballsy move by the Executive to make that provision anything more than a dead letter.

[DinoDoc]

On what possible assertion of standing?

Under the doctrine of it would be fun to see them hoisted on thier own pitard. Supported by the common law case Hamlet v. Claudius.

[Drake Tungsten]

Guy's salary is going to go up.

U.S. Faces Shortage of Doctors

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html

Unless a nurse takes his job...

Doctor shortage? 28 states may expand nurses' role

CHICAGO — A nurse may soon be your doctor. With a looming shortage of primary care doctors, 28 states are considering expanding the authority of nurse practitioners. These nurses with advanced degrees want the right to practice without a doctor's watchful eye and to prescribe narcotics. And if they hold a doctorate, they want to be called "Doctor."

For years, nurse practitioners have been playing a bigger role in the nation's health care, especially in regions with few doctors. With 32 million more Americans gaining health insurance within a few years, the health care overhaul is putting more money into nurse-managed clinics.

Those newly insured patients will be looking for doctors and may find nurses instead.

The medical establishment is fighting to protect turf. In some statehouses, doctors have shown up in white coats to testify against nurse practitioner bills. The American Medical Association, which supported the national health care overhaul, says a doctor shortage is no reason to put nurses in charge and endanger patients.

Nurse practitioners argue there's no danger. They say they're highly trained and as skilled as doctors at diagnosing illness during office visits. They know when to refer the sickest patients to doctor specialists. Plus, they spend more time with patients and charge less.

"We're constantly having to prove ourselves," said Chicago nurse practitioner Amanda Cockrell, 32, who tells patients she's just like a doctor "except for the pay."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCB6VTbMN12zQSwafnZfBJovMseAD9F2CK880

[Guynemer]

Please, God. I'd like to finish paying my student loans before I'm 60.


This is not an exaggeration.