SLU Health Law Program

Morgan Hermanson & Pat Cooney

     

Growing concerns of future employment have plagued graduates across the country because of the recession and high unemployment rates. The government implemented a new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, and countless industries are examining its details and flocking to benefit from its existence. The health law program at Saint Louis University Law School is no exception, as this community continues to experience success in the world of academia.

       SLU has the number one health law program in the country for the eighth straight year, according to U.S. News & World Report.  The rankings appear in the magazine’s “Best Graduate Schools 2012 Edition” and are based on votes from health law scholars. Many applicants to the health law program at SLU include medical professionals such as doctors and nurses returning to school to study the law, said Assistant Dean of Admissions Michael Kolnik.

However, Kolnik and others in the law school say it is still uncertain how much impact the PPACA has had on admission interest.

       What is for certain is that the new law will require attorneys to translate details involved in the 2,700-page document, which is generally good news for the health law profession.

       “Many of the business operations, whether they’re contracts, joint ventures or mergers, are going to require the assistance of lawyers to put the deal together,” said Professor Tim Greaney, director of the Center for Health Law Studies at SLU. Attorneys will be needed to help “new organizations, new structures and new arrangements” transition into a more integrated system, said Greaney.

       Oversight of the new regulations in the law by attorneys will allow the government to have more supervision over suspected fraud, said Greaney.

        “That requires legal assistance of both the prophylactic point of view, preventing harm, and from the remedial point of view,” correcting harm, he said.

       Admittedly, he said the recession has also affected the legal job market, which is at an all-time low in his 20 years of experience in teaching. However, he characterizes the health law students at SLU as likely doing better than average in comparison to other graduates because of the consistent growth for physician and hospital practices.

       At SLU, students select from a variety of health law classes to complete their health law certificate.  The health law certificate signals to employers that graduates are serious about the subject and have studied it in-depth, said Amy Sanders, assistant director of the Center for Health Law Studies.  

         SLU Law offers dual-degree programs including Master's of Public Health and Master's of Health Administration, said Sanders, which include following a general, versatile law degree but also explore questions of bioethics, business and policy.

       There are many opportunities for students at SLU to gain experience in the health law industry before graduation, such as internships in Washington D.C. and St. Louis, said Kolnik. Students can also compete in moot court, a prestigious extracurricular activity in law schools.

It is a simulated courtroom experience for law students. Additionally, they can write an editorial for the Journal of Health Law & Policy, published bi-annually by the Center for Health Law Studies.

       Kolnik and Sanders suggested that the PPACA inevitably will have an impact on job opportunities for health law graduates at SLU, although exact statistics have not been reported.  The PPACA must survive the numerous lawsuits pending that challenge its constitutionality.  One thing is for certain: Health law will continue to be a sought-after field for future law graduates.

Michael Kolnik      kolnikmj@slu.edu

Tim Greaney         greanetl@slu.edu

Amy Sanders       sanderan@slu.edu

The video we would include would feature lawmakers in Congress debating the Health Care law, followed by a cut to SLU Law students in moot court discussing similar topics.

Boy, I hope Donald Trump Wins the GOP Nomination

I recently received an email from President Barack Obama.  He wrote, "We're doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you -- with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers, and friends."


What a joke.  It is predicted that Obama will spend over $1 billion on his reelection campaign, primarily for expensive TV ads.  It's how you winelections after all.  Sure, the veneer of Grassroots organizing will be maintained, and people WILL canvass, phonebank, put out yard signs.  But the reality is that Obama administration has been anything but responsive to the small donors and people going to door-to-door. It's all about the corporate donors and Washington establishment.  That's who Barack really cares about, and is  why he will probably win the election.


And that's exactly why I'm rooting for Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination.  His larger-than-life caricature will make this election FUN, an expensive TV extravaganza like none the world has seen before.  Trump could potentially raise Obama's bet of $1 billion and piss away $2 billion to take a shot at the Oval Office. 


I shudder at the thought of Obama running against Tim Pawlenty, possibly the only person in American politics more boring than the president himself.  Trump is totally over-the-top and his inevitable loss to Obama will be hilarious to watch. Picture the blowhards in our media like Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, and Bill O'Reilly being forced to take this clown's quixotic campaign seriously!  


We have not had someone this woefully unqualified to run for POTUS since Ronald Reagan, but if he proved a simple-minded movie star can become Commander-in-chief, then why not a simple-minded TV star?  Hell, he could follow in Reagan's footsteps reusing clichés from his past career while president.  Imagine The Donald telling our vicious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "You're fired!" 


Best of all Trump reflects what many Americans perceive as important in their President.  He is a successful businessman.  He is a "Washington outsider". He has a hot wife.  He has a reality TV show.  He is White. 


Does he make serious critiques of the Obama Administration's policies? No, he prefers to clamor for Obama's Birth Certificate and question his religion.  But hey, so does a sizable segment of the American public.  


Trump would reveal the campaign for President of the United States as the charade it truly is: shady corporate funding, bogus rhetoric, cult of celebrity, constant TV appearances, a spineless Mainstream Media, and colorful spectacle.

Richard Gabriel Speech

Richard Gabriel, Ph.D., said that the United States has no vital interest in Afghanistan, and that the current strategy is clouded by domestic concerns as well as a failure to understand the region's history and culture, in his speech: “Afghanistan: A Strategic and Tactical Analysis,” Monday.

       Speaking to a crowd of over 100 students, faculty, and concerned citizens in Saint Louis University's Pius Library, Gabriel explained why he believes President Obama has increased U.S. Military presence in Afghanistan.

       “Obama understands that if [he] let people perceive [him] as weak [militarily], he will be attacked by the right-wing in this country.”

       Gabriel, a retired Army officer, is the author of more than 30 books concerning all things military. He discussed how a president's foreign policy is often informed by domestic concerns, for better or worse.

       “No sitting president could allow the [9/11] attacks to go unanswered and remain in office.  But Bush, to his credit, understood that the

U.S. had no strategic interest in Afghanistan and switched priorities.”

       Obama, in contrast to his predecessor, has made Afghanistan a focal point of his administration; a fact that Gabriel believes has more to do with winning independent voters than winning the War on Terror.

       Gabriel argued the mission is shortsighted and ineffective, “[The mission is] to stop the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and [not allow them to] make a base for terrorism.  But there is no need for bases to plot a terrorist attack, any hotel will do.” 

       He brought up that American anger at the attacks was directed at the Taliban regime, with dubious rationale.

       “By no means can we claim that the Taliban would have supported terrorism against the U.S.…There is no evidence to suggest that the

Taliban trusted al-Qaida.”

       Gabriel alluded to U.S. support for the Taliban regime in the late 1990s and claimed, “[The U.S.] paid [the Taliban] some $230 million a year to destroy opium in Afghanistan.” 

       The speaker noted that in addition to domestic concerns, ignorance about Afghan history and culture has plagued U.S. Military objectives there.

Gabriel stressed the tribal culture of Afghanistan, and U.S. failure to understand its implications.

       “The largest tribal society in the world was split in half... The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was drawn by a British bird watcher.”

       Gabriel pointed out that U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had recognized the Taliban's Islamic Fundamentalist regime and that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban.  

In addition, he discussed the crucial role the U.S. played in providing training, funding and weaponry to militant Islamic jihadists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Gabriel contends that ignorance of this context has severely hampered U.S. military objectives.

Gabriel thinks it is likely the U.S. will return home and that Afghanistan will revert to a patchwork of regional and local militias.  Reflecting on the role of the American military going forward,

Gabriel said, “No one ever made the military better by covering up mistakes.”