Stretching Reconciliation, This Time in the House

[Pangloss]

If you're the Speaker for a sharply divided House of Representatives, how do you get a bill passed if the members vote it down? Simple: You declare that it has passed anyway, and send it to the White House for signature. This is what Nancy Pelosi says she will do if the House's upcoming vote on the Senate's health care bill fails.

 

Which sounds insanely crazy, until you hear that apparently it's happened before.

 

The so-called "Slaughter rule" (some places call it "Solution") is named for Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from New York who sits on the Rules Committee who apparently mentioned the little-known rule to Pelosi. Pelosi explained at a news conference Monday that (in 1965) Medicare opponents had put a measure put to a vote that should have stopped Medicare from passing. The vote succeeded, and according to Pelosi Medicare should have been stopped, but proponents "then went through the sheets with the names of the members and all the rest," she said, and "ended up with a victory at the end."

 

An intriguing statement, for sure, but rather light on details. I haven't yet found an article explaining this rule's basis in detail, but this article talks about how it's been used many times before:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/MNS31CGOSS.DTL

 

Republicans used the rule 36 times in 2005 and 2006; Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008.

 

Which would seem to undermine any potential Constitutional crisis (sorry GOP), though it kinda begs the question of why Pelosi was acting like she didn't know about it until Slaughter told her last week, since those 2007/2008 uses would have been during her tenure as Speaker. Also I have to say that it makes me wonder what these people are doing having rules like that floating around, much less using them.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Pangloss

[The Bear's Key]

Also I have to say that it makes me wonder what these people are doing having rules like that floating around, much less using them.

I entirely agree. Pangloss. I've long detested that our government can have such loophole/obscure rules floating around.

 

Government needs to cleanup and make extraordinarily public all its little odd and questionable rules/policies.

[ParanoiA]

Ah yes, the self-executing rule. Not sure if you all found this or not, but it gives a fair description of the practice.

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/16/2229330.aspx

 

This is true in the sense that there would not be a DIRECT vote. But the health-care bill would be voted on INDIRECTLY, tucked into what's known as "the rule." The rule essentially outlines the rules for an upcoming vote -- in this case, it would be the vote on the package of reconciliation fixes.

 

By passing "the rule," the House also would "deem" the Senate bill passed (with a "hereby" statement. "We hereby deem..."). The House would then vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. But the Senate health-care bill would be considered passed even if they never vote on the reconciliation fixes.

 

They get their authority from Article 1, section 5. This is the complete text:

 

From: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

 

Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

 

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

 

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

 

There is very little direction on the extent of these rules. Certainly nothing that allows chickenshit "deem and pass" games with the rules. I wonder how long it will take before they attempt to go to war with this tactic.

 

But it won't stand. INS v. Chadha (1983) and Clinton v City of New York (1998) both held that there was only one way for a bill to become law and that requires passage of the bill in one house, approval of the "exact text" in the other, and a presidential signature or 2/3rds majority vote to override.

 

The 1998 Clinton v NY Line item veto was unconstitutional based on Article 1, Section 7, mainly the Presentment Clause, and this is the full text:

 

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

 

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

 

I have faith the supreme court will knock it down if they do this.

 

Either way though, it's a nasty bit of cowardice to use a self-executing rule and I had no idea it was used so much. I can't imagine how it was ever allowed.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also I have to say that it makes me wonder what these people are doing having rules like that floating around, much less using them.

 

I think the answer to that, is "Whatever the hell they want."

[jryan]

Part of the problem is that nobody seems to agree on what they are actually planning to do. Here is an explanation of the plan on MSNBC:

 

"Some stories have implied that there would not be a vote. For example, the Washington Post had this headline today: "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it."

 

This is true in the sense that there would not be a DIRECT vote. But the health-care bill would be voted on INDIRECTLY, tucked into what's known as "the rule." The rule essentially outlines the rules for an upcoming vote -- in this case, it would be the vote on the package of reconciliation fixes.

 

By passing "the rule," the House also would "deem" the Senate bill passed (with a "hereby" statement. "We hereby deem..."). The House would then vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. But the Senate health-care bill would be considered passed even if they never vote on the reconciliation fixes."

 

So this seems quite unlike any of the anecdotal "they did it too!" claims that I have seen. In this case the vote on the rule to deem the reconciliation bill an auto-execute of the Senate bill will itself then be used to deem the unamended Senate bill as passed before the bill for which the rule was written is even voted on.

 

So, in reality, the rule that the house votes on that deems the senate bill passed will be a rule for a debate that then never happens.

 

Crikey this is a mess. I can't imagine how such an end-around could ever pass through the Supreme Court, which it will have to since 38 States have lawsuits waiting to be filed if the bill passes in this manor.

 

Also, Virginia is working on State legislation that will ignore the majority of the Health Care Bill even if it clears the Supreme Court the first time.

[iNow]

Also, Virginia is working on State legislation that will ignore the majority of the Health Care Bill even if it clears the Supreme Court the first time.

 

Virginia legislators should familiarize themselves with Article 6 clause two of the US constitution.

[Pangloss]

I'm reminded of that old adage about sausage and legislation! Oh well.

 

Not sure if you all found this or not, but it gives a fair description of the practice.

 

Thanks ParanoiA. Always good to see you pop in here for a helpful post.

 

Just to outline this, what it sounds like is that the following is going to take place:

 

1) Pelosi will put forward the Senate health care bill as writ. A vote will take place, and if 218 members vote yes then the bill passes and there is no reconciliation.

 

2) If the bill fails, Pelosi puts forward something called "the rule", which is an undetermined reconciliation package for the Senate health care plan. If it passes then the President signs it into law and a team from the House will meet with a team from the Senate later to determine what the law actually means. (Hopefully without accidentally spending another trillion dollars.)

 

So does everyone think I've paraphrased that more or less accurately?

[jryan]

Virginia legislators should familiarize themselves with Article 6 clause two of the US constitution.

 

As should the House and Senate familiarize itself with the enumerated powers granted them by Article 1 Section 8. Article 2 section 6 is only valid when the laws passed by Congress do not exceed the enumerated powers of Article 1.

 

On many levels this Health Care bill ignores the constitutional limits on their power while claiming, as you do, full freedom under 2.6. It doesn't work that way.

 

At the heart of the 38 state lawsuit is the bill's mandate to purchase Health Insurance. This mandate does not fall under any of the enumerated powers of Congress.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Thanks ParanoiA. Always good to see you pop in here for a helpful post.

 

Just to outline this, what it sounds like is that the following is going to take place:

 

1) Pelosi will put forward the Senate health care bill as writ. A vote will take place, and if 218 members vote yes then the bill passes and there is no reconciliation.

 

2) If the bill fails, Pelosi puts forward something called "the rule", which is an undetermined reconciliation package for the Senate health care plan. If it passes then the President signs it into law and a team from the House will meet with a team from the Senate later to determine what the law actually means. (Hopefully without accidentally spending another trillion dollars.)

 

So does everyone think I've paraphrased that more or less accurately?

 

I'd like to thank ParanoiA as well since they beat me to the MSNBC article.

 

Also, I don't think you quite have it right, Pangloss. The reality makes a good deal less sense. Here is how I see it:

 

1) If Pelosi can round up enough votes for the amendment bill then she will inclusde an auto-execute into the amendment bill to pass the Senate bill and the Amendments... it would then go to the Senate for a simple majority vote.

 

2) The House rules committee will put the auto-execute up for a vote (a standard "these are the rules we will follow on this vote"), and add a rider to the rules vote that passage of the rules vote will deem the unaltered Senate bill passed. This would allow Pelosi to deliver the Senate bill directly to the President without a direct vote on the Senate bill OR THE AMENDMENT BILL.

 

So rather than voting of the Senate bill or the Amendment bill the House will have only voted on the rules for a vote that may never happen.,, but somehow that will all that is required to get the bill signed into law.

 

It is #2 that would lead to a lawsuit about the constitutionality of te bill as it appears to not meet the requirement of bicameralism. If it passes that legal challenge then the states would challenge portions of the bill on the ground sthat they exceed congressional and executive authority.

[ParanoiA]

As should the House and Senate familiarize itself with the enumerated powers granted them by Article 1 Section 8. Article 2 section 6 is only valid when the laws passed by Congress do not exceed the enumerated powers of Article 1.

 

On many levels this Health Care bill ignores the constitutional limits on their power while claiming' date=' as you do, full freedom under 2.6. It doesn't work that way.

 

At the heart of the 38 state lawsuit is the bill's mandate to purchase Health Insurance. This mandate does not fall under any of the enumerated powers of Congress.[/quote']

 

But doesn't a supreme court decision that finds it constitutional thereby qualify it for enumerated powers? If congress was to move beyond their enumerated powers, that would make it unconstitutional wouldn't it?

 

Don't get me wrong, I entirely believe it is beyond their enumerated powers, and I certainly disagree with the SC's expanded view of Intra-state Commerce and General Welfare, but the authority view (however misguided in our opinion) has labeled such as valid.

[iNow]

Just to outline this, what it sounds like is that the following is going to take place:

 

1) Pelosi will put forward the Senate health care bill as writ. A vote will take place, and if 218 members vote yes then the bill passes and there is no reconciliation.

 

<...>

 

So does everyone think I've paraphrased that more or less accurately?

 

Small correction: They only need 216 members to vote yes. There are currently four empty seats, bringing the total number of house members to 431. That means that 216 yes votes will serve as a majority over 215 no votes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As should the House and Senate familiarize itself with the enumerated powers granted them by Article 1 Section 8.

So, basically, you are here arguing that the part of our constitution (Article 1, Section 8) which states congress can make any law it sees fit to promote the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder... is what should PREVENT them from being able to pass healthcare legislation?

 

I'm not sure what planet you've been living on which would make you think that the general welfare clause disallows government action on healthcare, but reality is somewhat different here on earth as evidenced by Medicare and Social Security and the FDA and public schools and police and fire departments and public libraries and public water treatment plants and ad infinitum.

[ParanoiA]

So, basically, you are here arguing that the part of our constitution (Article 1, Section 8) which states congress can make any law it sees fit to promote the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder... is what should PREVENT them from being able to pass healthcare legislation?

 

There is a very powerful counter argument made by Madison himself, and several others, though Hamilton certainly disagreed. And I'm not sure how anyone can argue around it, but they've managed to. The argument is simple: If general welfare means they can pass any law as long as it qualifies to Congress as general and not special, then what's the point of enumerated powers? Madison said the general welfare clause was short hand for the enumerated powers, that those two words didn't magically cancel out the subtending list of enumerated powers in section 8. What's the point of a lenghty, wordy constitution if it can be distilled down to "general welfare" qualification?

 

You're certainly welcome to disagree, but don't pretend jryan is a space cadet because he holds the enumerated powers in higher esteem than that two word weasle phrase that supposedly cancels them all out. It was just waiting for a flexible, activist supreme court to exploit it.

 

I'm not sure what planet you've been living on which would make you think that the general welfare clause disallows government action on healthcare, but reality is somewhat different here on earth as evidenced by Medicare and Social Security and the FDA and public schools and police and fire departments and public libraries and public water treatment plants and ad infinitum.

 

We're living on the planet that contains a population that claims to be the land of the free, while they cultivate a legislature of socialistic collectivists that see no liberty issue in forcing citizens to buy products. Other than that gross violation, I do concede that we have expanded upon the view of the framers in the supreme court (namely the New Deal court, I think Roosevelt appointed 7 judges during his presidency?) via judicial activism. That's how you get 150 years of precedent over turned.

Edited March 19, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jryan]

But doesn't a supreme court decision that finds it constitutional thereby qualify it for enumerated powers? If congress was to move beyond their enumerated powers, that would make it unconstitutional wouldn't it?

 

Don't get me wrong, I entirely believe it is beyond their enumerated powers, and I certainly disagree with the SC's expanded view of Intra-state Commerce and General Welfare, but the authority view (however misguided in our opinion) has labeled such as valid.

 

I'm not sure. Can the Supreme Court rule on the bill outside the bounds of the initial lawsuit? They can rule that the "deem" is constitutional without ever ruling on whether the content is constitutional.

[Pangloss]

There seem to be two issues here:

 

1) Is there a valid constitutional question regarding whether it is allowable to pass a law without actually voting on it?

 

It's happened many times, but never for something so monumental. I think it's a bit ridiculous to never question a rule until it becomes about "something monumental", and I think that both parties have produced this mess, but none of that necessarily precludes Supreme Court interference. American history is rife with examples of something that happened many times over before the Supreme Court interceded, and often it seems like the question of intercession is dependent more on the willingness of a party to bring the issue before the court than it is on any of the circumstances involved in the issue itself.

 

2) Does it make sense, and/or is it objectionable, for members of Congress to vote on a bill that they will not know (or perhaps even participate in) the content of?

 

If this goes forward it will mean that members who voted for it hope that any personal concerns they have will be addressed in reconciliation, but they won't actually know (or having ANY control over) whether that will be the case.

 

To me the second point is not constitutional in nature, but just a sheer "is that any way to run a railroad" type of question. As such it may not be really pertinent to this case.

 

Which I guess is why opponents are focusing more on the first question.

[jryan]

Moot point now as the Democrats dropped the "deem" rule it seems.

 

Oh, and here's a fun unintended consequence:

 

29% of doctors may leave healthcare when the bill is passed.

 

All the talk about cutting costs and getting people insured and they seem to have missed that there are doctors that need to get paid so they can meet the rent on the office and pay their staff...

 

None of them are interested in bureaucrats bringing the industry down to Medicare pay-out levels. Family practices simply can't function at those levels without layoffs.

[iNow]

So what? Don't you believe in the free market? Those doctors who were running too high an overhead and renting offices they can't afford will be forced to be more frugal, and those who focused on care instead of facilities and pretty staffers and had operational costs within their means will thrive.

 

Geesh.

[jryan]

So what? Don't you believe in the free market? Those doctors who were running too high an overhead and renting offices they can't afford will be forced to be more frugal, and those who focused on care instead of facilities and pretty staffers and had operational costs within their means will thrive.

 

Geesh.

 

You have a strange definition of the free market. The free market was where the family practitioner was thriving. Obamacare and price fixing is not the free market.

 

But yeah, they will make up the difference with offices in the boiler room and ugglier staff.

[toastywombel]

Moot point now as the Democrats dropped the "deem" rule it seems.

 

Oh, and here's a fun unintended consequence:

 

29% of doctors may leave healthcare when the bill is passed.

 

All the talk about cutting costs and getting people insured and they seem to have missed that there are doctors that need to get paid so they can meet the rent on the office and pay their staff...

 

None of them are interested in bureaucrats bringing the industry down to Medicare pay-out levels. Family practices simply can't function at those levels without layoffs.

 

I highly doubt the authenticity of this article, based on the obvious bias, funders, and previous incorrectness by the Cybercast News Service.

 

"The CNSNews.com (or Cybercast News Service), formerly called the Conservative News Service, is an American news website owned by the Media Research Center. "

 

From MRC's website: "The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."

 

Here is a list of major funders to the MRC,

 

Exxon Mobil

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

Sarah Scaife Foundation

Castle Rock Foundation

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

The Carthage Foundation

JM Foundation

 

Here is more information on a couple of the funders

 

"The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off."

 

"All four have been heavily involved in financing conservative causes under the direction of reclusive billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune."

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center

 

 

"In 1994, the MRC first printed the following excerpt from Howell Raines' book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis:[1]

Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in those days, and my work -- which consisted of reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me....My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I had arrived in our nation's capital [in 1981] during a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness....Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.

But the quotes were cobbled together from two different sections of the book; the span of the ellipsis between "hard-heartedness" and "Reagan couldn't tie" is 28 pages. Further, the statement "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it" refers in context to Reagan's fly-fishing skills, not his IQ.[2] The MRC later appended a "clarification" putting the statements in their proper context."

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center

 

Its always good to know your sources jryan

 

Furthermore, did you even look at the survey you cited?

 

"On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform."

 

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

 

So it is good to note, this survey was done before the healthcare bill had even been finalized. Also it is good to note that the sample size of this survey is relatively small only 1000 physicians. If you read through the article too which can be found at http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform, you will notice this,

 

"Additionally, many physicians feel that health reform will cause income to decrease, while workload will increase. Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result. This makes for a total of 72 percent of respondents who feel there would be a negative impact on income. When asked the same question regarding health reform implemented without a public option, a total of 50 percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will be negatively impacted, including 14 percent of total respondents who feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically.” Additionally, 36 percent feel it would “decline or worsen somewhat."

 

It is good to note there is no public option in the current healthcare plan. Also I would like to point out the fuzzy math used by the author in this article.

 

"Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result."

 

This seems like the same question asked twice and then the percentages are just added together?

 

Furthermore, back to the sample of this survey, the methodology of the survey can be found at http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey

 

Primary Care

(Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Family Practice)

34.3%

Specialists (all other)

65.7%

 

That doesn't seem like a well balanced group, considering there are more primary care doctors compared to specialists.

Here is another interesting question that somewhat disproves the point the article was trying to make and applies more to the current situation,

 

How do you think the passage of health reform WITHOUT a public option would affect your professional/practice plans, if at all?

 

No change: 70%

I would try to retire early: 22%

I would try to leave medical practice even if not near retirement age: 8%

I would go back into practicing medicine (if non-clinical or semi-retired now): 1%

 

Well what is going to pass is health reform without a public option, 70% said this would not change there practice/professional plans.

 

Now finally I would like to point out this question on the survey,

 

How many years have you practiced medicine?

 

Haven’t started

10%

Less than one year

3%

1-3 years

20%

4-6 years

18%

7-10 years

7%

11-15 years

8%

16-20 years

10%

21+ years

24%

 

So it is good to note that 1/10 of the doctors who answered this survey were not even currently practicing at the time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Regarding the OP. I think reconcilliation is fine, but I think the business of the bill being passed without an actual vote is somewhat fishy.

Edited March 21, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

21%, 36%, 46%, any of those numbers (or fractions) would be very bad for a profession that needs to grow. Being a doctor is no longer worth it financially as extended schooling, increased complexity, and high student loan amounts make the $140,000 payday (average salary of family practitioner) not worth it.

 

Hell, you can make that after a few years with a simple IT certification.

[iNow]

Healthcare just passed congress.

[bascule]

...and they just had the reconciliation vote and it passed as well.

[toastywombel]

21%, 36%, 46%, any of those numbers (or fractions) would be very bad for a profession that needs to grow. Being a doctor is no longer worth it financially as extended schooling, increased complexity, and high student loan amounts make the $140,000 payday (average salary of family practitioner) not worth it.

 

Hell, you can make that after a few years with a simple IT certification.

 

Why can't we have healthcare for everyone?

It costs too much money.

Why?

Well one reason is, doctors have to get paid an above average income, because it cost a lot of money for them to become doctors.

 

I think the short conversation above makes one point very clear. We need to fix the education systems available for becoming a doctor, make it cheaper somehow. Maybe get rid of privatized student loans and replace it with a publicly funded system.

 

Doctors have to get paid less for public healthcare, but because they have to pay a lot for student loans?

 

Jryan, it seems you do not understand that insurance, loans, and finance are systems run by middle men making money off of money. They are a drain on our economy. These institutions allow money to be available to the public, but it is often with strings attached, and set up in a way so they can make a profit.

 

These parts of our economy produce no goods, no actual product. They are sucking money from the economy simply because they have money. If thats constitutional, I could really care less, because I think it is obvious that it is not the right thing to do.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

21%, 36%, 46%, any of those numbers (or fractions) would be very bad for a profession that needs to grow. Being a doctor is no longer worth it financially as extended schooling, increased complexity, and high student loan amounts make the $140,000 payday (average salary of family practitioner) not worth it.

 

Hell, you can make that after a few years with a simple IT certification.

 

The whole survey was based on public option vs not public option healthcare reform, it was done in December, you cannot use numbers from that to prove your point on the healthcare bill now. It simply isn't a relevant survey, and on the article you cited, did you even read it again. Scroll past the graph and there are words,

 

"Despite the recent slump in the U.S. economy, the health care industry continues to grow. This is good news for anyone interested in a medical career, including doctors. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment outlook for physicians is bright; a 14 percent employment growth rate is projected over the next several years."

 

So let me get this straight, the page you mentioned from Payscale.com is actually betting against the fact that 1/3 of physicians might leave. That is pretty bad man

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was expecting that a response would have been made by now.

Edited March 22, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Well one reason is, doctors have to get paid an above average income, because it cost a lot of money for them to become doctors.

 

It's worth noting that the legislation passed yesterday does not address this issue.

[toastywombel]

It's worth noting that the legislation passed yesterday does not address this issue.

 

That is why I think the legislation passed yesterday is primarily a joke and a handout to the insurance companies. It doesn't address the true problem with our healthcare system.

 

The only reason why I would be inclined to support it is because it seems to allow the dems to atleast get their foot in the door when it comes to reforming healthcare.