Doctor Sues Obama Over Health-Care Law

Under a new rule in the Health Care Law, doctors will not be allowed to own hospitals. There are only 260 hospitals in the United States that are owned by doctors and a statistics say that physician owned hospitals are cheaper, have better outcomes, provide more charity care, and pay taxes.  Dr. Michael Russell, the owner of the Spine and Joint Hospital in Tyler, Texas is sueing the Obama Administration and claims this law will limit the hospital’s ability to “expand and compete.”  This particular hospital in Tyler, Texas was ranked number one in Texas for spinal surgery.

Critics of the physician owned hospitals argue that there are more down sides to these hospitals than upsides. These hospitals are known for making their hospital appealing by providing a sense of comfort, such as serving wine and gourmet meals.  It is said that 30% of these hospitals, although owned by doctors, rarely ever have a doctor on site and many don’t even have an emergency department. Basically the physician owned hospitals are more like a “quick care” facility rather than an actual legit hospital.

I understand both sides of the issue. I agree that if the doctor owned hospitals have better outcomes and provide a lot of charity care then they should be allowed to continue to operate. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be called hospitals if they don’t even have an emergency room. If they could come to a compromise on the issue I think it would be better than completely shutting them down. Maybe if the doctor owned hospitals had guidelines set by the Department of Health and Human Services that required having a doctor on the site at all times and were required to have some sort of emergency room it could an easy improvement made to the business. If these standards were not followed, the hospitals would have to label themselves as quick care facilities. I think that these issues can easily be worked out.   

“O’Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can’t Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With

In the article “O’Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can’t Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With,” Christine O’Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware, is having a debate with her opponent, Chris Coons. The author of the blog states that GOP candidates claim that if things like Medicare, social security, unemployment insurance, and being a member of the UN are not acceptable to the Republicans, they think it should be unconstitutional. The debate starts out talking about the 9/11 mosque that may or may not be built down by Ground Zero.  Somehow the debate ends up in O’Donnell making a fool out of herself and expressing her ignorance. On the video provided in the blog, an interviewer, also in the debate, asked O’Donnell which Supreme Court cases she disagreed with and she stated that she couldn’t come up with something off the top of her head. Basically the blogger argues that she is extremely ignorant and should not be a representative for Delaware considering the fact that she couldn’t even name Roe v. Wade, the most known Supreme Court case. The last statement that the writer makes is that the Republicans across the country continue to select people who haven’t the first idea about the Constitution.

I agree with the author of the blog to an extent. It all goes back to the fact that the public needs to be involved and informed. If our citizens were more informed they wouldn’t be electing people who shouldn’t be in office. I don’t believe that the only people who are uninformed are Republicans. I think that the political illiteracy goes both ways. I agree that Christine O’Donnell probably needs to start by reading up on the Supreme Court cases from past and present court cases.