Top Law Schools

Does anyone see a possible rise in the field of health care law with the SCOTUS upholding Obamacare? The magnitude of the law is daunting.

Nah, just a couple of new laws.

You have to have insurance. Well, you need to have car insurance also, and I never heard of a field called auto insurance law.

ben4847 wrote:Nah, just a couple of new laws.

You have to have insurance. Well, you need to have car insurance also, and I never heard of a field called auto insurance law.

But you can choose not to have a car. By breathing and being an American you have to be in this market.

ben4847 wrote:Nah, just a couple of new laws.

You have to have insurance. Well, you need to have car insurance also, and I never heard of a field called auto insurance law.

Are you serious? Have you actually looked into it or are you like the politicians who passed it and just shooting from the hip? Your aim is way off. It's like 1000 pages of new law. It's totally different than auto insurance too. Gee I wonder why they went to the trouble to post this --LinkRemoved--

Bartlebee06 wrote:

ben4847 wrote:Nah, just a couple of new laws.

You have to have insurance. Well, you need to have car insurance also, and I never heard of a field called auto insurance law.

Are you serious? Have you actually looked into it or are you like the politicians who passed it and just shooting from the hip? Your aim is way off. It's like 1000 pages of new law. It's totally different than auto insurance too. Gee I wonder why they went to the trouble to post this --LinkRemoved--

lol
Thanks for that.

ben4847 wrote:Nah, just a couple of new laws.

You have to have insurance. Well, you need to have car insurance also, and I never heard of a field called auto insurance law.

I have.

I am curious about this as well. It seems hospitals would also need more healthcare compliance specialists to help sort through everything and keep them legal.

SuperCerealBrah wrote:I am curious about this as well. It seems hospitals would also need more healthcare compliance specialists to help sort through everything and keep them legal.

Not really...they already have compliance departments, and the new law doesn't really add much in terms of new work, just changes some practices. There'll be a small boom in the next 3 years to decipher the new regs, but no real longterm increase in compliance needs. Healthcare law is more of an industry you work in rather than a practice- within health care you've got regulatory practice, labor, litigation, M&A, hell even property work for the bigger systems.

notedgarfigaro wrote:

SuperCerealBrah wrote:I am curious about this as well. It seems hospitals would also need more healthcare compliance specialists to help sort through everything and keep them legal.

Not really...they already have compliance departments, and the new law doesn't really add much in terms of new work, just changes some practices. There'll be a small boom in the next 3 years to decipher the new regs, but no real longterm increase in compliance needs. Healthcare law is more of an industry you work in rather than a practice- within health care you've got regulatory practice, labor, litigation, M&A, hell even property work for the bigger systems.

You are insane, or ill-informed, or both. This law changes so much about how healthcare institutions work, that it blows my mind. There will be another decade of mergers and consolidation among hospitals, and the entire case law regarding antitrust in the healthcare sector is going to need to be re-evaluated. An entire body of federal insurance regulation that has never before existed is being created, and will need to be interpreted. Then, every state's insurance law will need to be reexamined to determine how and where the two conflict, and what needs to happen to fix those conflicts. Then there is a massive expansion of Medicaid that will need to be implemented at both state and federal levels, and provider instituions are going to need guidance in navigating all those new programs. And I could go on.

And, this is before the inevitable modifications that will need to be legislated in the next 10 years. THe bill as it exists now is unsustainably expensive, and Congress punted the cost issue down the road; so expect at least one more major overhaul in the intermediate term future.

Without getting bogged down in the politics of the issue, it's going to be a growing field over the next decade anyway, as the demand for medical care increases.

I have been wondering about this for some time as well. I am a 0L beging law school in the fall and I am interested in the possibility of exploring this field as it grows (if it grows). It seems that there may be a moderate increase in the number of jobs available in this field and that these jobs may provide more stability/security because of the ubiquitous nature of healthcare and insurance. Everyone needs it afterall, it's not going to disappear.

Do any current students, or even better practicing attorneys, have advice for someone looking to research employment opportunities in this area?

el William wrote:I have been wondering about this for some time as well. I am a 0L beging law school in the fall and I am interested in the possibility of exploring this field as it grows (if it grows). It seems that there may be a moderate increase in the number of jobs available in this field and that these jobs may provide more stability/security because of the ubiquitous nature of healthcare and insurance. Everyone needs it afterall, it's not going to disappear.

Do any current students, or even better practicing attorneys, have advice for someone looking to research employment opportunities in this area?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement. Plenty of people see Obamacare as a forerunner of a single-payer system. It will make health insurance less profitable while strengthening the government's position in the market. If that happens, then I would imagine the need for litigation would actually go down.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think healthcare attorneys make the big bucks dealing with Medicare cases (unless it's a state vs. provider fraud case).

for10s88 wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think healthcare attorneys make the big bucks dealing with Medicare cases (unless it's a state vs. provider fraud case).

...Or if you're the one doing the fraud.

It's easy to spot the Democrats and Republicans in this thread.

for10s88 wrote:

el William wrote:I have been wondering about this for some time as well. I am a 0L beging law school in the fall and I am interested in the possibility of exploring this field as it grows (if it grows). It seems that there may be a moderate increase in the number of jobs available in this field and that these jobs may provide more stability/security because of the ubiquitous nature of healthcare and insurance. Everyone needs it afterall, it's not going to disappear.

Do any current students, or even better practicing attorneys, have advice for someone looking to research employment opportunities in this area?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement. Plenty of people see Obamacare as a forerunner of a single-payer system. It will make health insurance less profitable while strengthening the government's position in the market. If that happens, then I would imagine the need for litigation would actually go down.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think healthcare attorneys make the big bucks dealing with Medicare cases (unless it's a state vs. provider fraud case).

The rise of single payer was actually more likely under the pre-ACA status quo than it is today.

Pizon wrote:It's easy to spot the Democrats and Republicans in this thread.

Which column did you think I was in before my last post?

The rise of single payer was actually more likely under the pre-ACA status quo than it is today.

No offense Bill but you are talking out of your arse. The President always intended to reach single payer. This law will funnel everyone into that system via cost effectiveness. It will simply be cheaper to enter the govt. exchange. That is the whole design. He said as Senator Obama that this was his intention. A bridge bill if you will. I want to at least thank you for not popping off about how this is not a "field of law" or that it wont effect the system at all. This thing is a monster and much of it is yet to be divulged or determined.

Single payer? Someone has to pay? I thought it was going to be free...

ben4847 wrote:Single payer? Someone has to pay? I thought it was going to be free...

this

Bartlebee06 wrote:

The rise of single payer was actually more likely under the pre-ACA status quo than it is today.

No offense Bill but you are talking out of your arse. The President always intended to reach single payer. This law will funnel everyone into that system via cost effectiveness. It will simply be cheaper to enter the govt. exchange. That is the whole design. He said as Senator Obama that this was his intention. A bridge bill if you will. I want to at least thank you for not popping off about how this is not a "field of law" or that it wont effect the system at all. This thing is a monster and much of it is yet to be divulged or determined.

The struggle that the President encountered to get this law passed and the backlash he's received from it has been monumental. This, of course, in response to a law that has been supported by republicans for decades and in no way resembles "socialized medicine" like many of the law's opponents charge. Do you honestly think he's gonna touch health care again, and this time to implement what would actually be socialized medicine? Single payer isn't happening any time soon, folks.

No offense Bill but you are talking out of your arse. The President always intended to reach single payer. This law will funnel everyone into that system via cost effectiveness. It will simply be cheaper to enter the govt. exchange. That is the whole design. He said as Senator Obama that this was his intention. A bridge bill if you will. I want to at least thank you for not popping off about how this is not a "field of law" or that it wont effect the system at all. This thing is a monster and much of it is yet to be divulged or determined.[/quote]

The struggle that the President encountered to get this law passed and the backlash he's received from it has been monumental. This, of course, in response to a law that has been supported by republicans for decades and in no way resembles "socialized medicine" like many of the law's opponents charge. Do you honestly think he's gonna touch health care again, and this time to implement what would actually be socialized medicine? Single payer isn't happening any time soon, folks.[/quote]

Have you even looked at the law? My guess is no. It will funnel people into government healthcare via its requirement. It calls for a massive expansion of Medicare (govt. healthcare) in order to do so. He doesn't have to touch it again because the 2,700 page behemoth allows for constant modifications and convoluted details. Its the same reason the tax code is so large. It allows for constant manipulation. Dont be a sheep and look into it please. 2 major medical equipment manufacturers are already planning exodus. The taxes on that industry are daunting. Who will pay for that?

Who will pay for medical manufacturing equipment? Pleaseeeeee. You mean the medical equipment that cost US hospitals 20k but are bought in Germany for 5k? While the CEO's are collecting 10's of millions...

Gimme a break.

J-e-L-L-o wrote:Who will pay for medical manufacturing equipment? Pleaseeeeee. You mean the medical equipment that cost US hospitals 20k but are bought in Germany for 5k? While the CEO's are collecting 10's of millions...

Gimme a break.

sources please? or do you just make this crap up hoping no one will challenge you on it.