And also just blaming it increased benefits. Increasing benefits just encourages more people to use/abuse the system. We need to work to get people off food stamps and other government support systems and back on their own feet, not spend more tax dollars to keep them down.
Liberals think the rich should give money to the poor. Conservatives believe hard work should be its own reward. Welfare reform passed with strong support from most of the American public. Food Stamps is a way for liberals to redistribute wealth, while retaining the support of moderates. Money is fungible. Food Stamps alleviate the need to buy food, which frees up funds for other things. Housing support does the same. Even though it’s the same as giving out free money, it’s easier to get political support for food stamps and housing allowance than sending out welfare checks.
Any physician who has been sued, or knows a colleague who has been sued, does not want to go through it if possible. While fear of lawsuits may be as irrational as fear of flying it is very real to the practitioner. Decreasing award amounts and similar reform measures may help lower malpractice insurance costs, but they will not reassure physicians simply because the lawsuit process is too painful.
Studies show that ironically, most medical malpractice lawsuits find in favor of the doctor. This means a) Most lawsuits are not warranted
or b) We are not punishing bad doctors and c) Plaintiffs are not getting compensated for medical mishaps.
If the purpose of malpractice litigation is to punish or root out bad doctors, there are other ways to accomplish this. Similarly, if we want to establish awards for medical mishaps, malpractice or no, we could establish funds and criteria for doing so. Remember, the attorneys get a third of the malpractice award as well, so this is a windfall, even for nuisance lawsuits. I suspect the legal profession would not be in favor of major reform in this arena.
Therefore, we are left with a process that continues to encourage possibly needless medical care, as well as discouraging appropriate application of evidence-based medicine, because what jury wants to hear the doctor did not do a test for financial reasons.
One proposed reform that would reduce SNAP rolls would be to require abled-bodied recipients to search for work. Following the 1996 federal welfare reform that required some job search effort, welfare rolls fell by nearly 50 percent. (See the NCPA study,
“Better Off Welfare,” http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/st255
“Casey Mulligan: The huge increase in Food Stamp spending is due to more generous benefits and easier eligibility, not to the depressed economy.”
Isn’t it both?
I guess he is saying that there has been a larger increase than what would have been expected from recession/depression.
And also just blaming it increased benefits. Increasing benefits just encourages more people to use/abuse the system. We need to work to get people off food stamps and other government support systems and back on their own feet, not spend more tax dollars to keep them down.
My guess is that is very much due to both. I could be at that point soon.
Liberals think the rich should give money to the poor. Conservatives believe hard work should be its own reward. Welfare reform passed with strong support from most of the American public. Food Stamps is a way for liberals to redistribute wealth, while retaining the support of moderates. Money is fungible. Food Stamps alleviate the need to buy food, which frees up funds for other things. Housing support does the same. Even though it’s the same as giving out free money, it’s easier to get political support for food stamps and housing allowance than sending out welfare checks.
“Book: Clinton’s State Department was told Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” minutes after it began.”
The Benghazi situation would be a big joke if it weren’t so serious.
It’s amazing how little outrage their has been. Do people not care or do they really believe the line?
Everyone knew that, no book was needed…
Any physician who has been sued, or knows a colleague who has been sued, does not want to go through it if possible. While fear of lawsuits may be as irrational as fear of flying it is very real to the practitioner. Decreasing award amounts and similar reform measures may help lower malpractice insurance costs, but they will not reassure physicians simply because the lawsuit process is too painful.
Studies show that ironically, most medical malpractice lawsuits find in favor of the doctor. This means a) Most lawsuits are not warranted
or b) We are not punishing bad doctors and c) Plaintiffs are not getting compensated for medical mishaps.
If the purpose of malpractice litigation is to punish or root out bad doctors, there are other ways to accomplish this. Similarly, if we want to establish awards for medical mishaps, malpractice or no, we could establish funds and criteria for doing so. Remember, the attorneys get a third of the malpractice award as well, so this is a windfall, even for nuisance lawsuits. I suspect the legal profession would not be in favor of major reform in this arena.
Therefore, we are left with a process that continues to encourage possibly needless medical care, as well as discouraging appropriate application of evidence-based medicine, because what jury wants to hear the doctor did not do a test for financial reasons.
One proposed reform that would reduce SNAP rolls would be to require abled-bodied recipients to search for work. Following the 1996 federal welfare reform that required some job search effort, welfare rolls fell by nearly 50 percent. (See the NCPA study,
“Better Off Welfare,” http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/st255