Posts
Mandatory Medical Malpractice Caps Hurt Patients | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Support for caps comes from individuals who see the medical malpractice system as broken, largely based on anecdotal observations. Everyone seems to have heard a story of a high verdict to a plaintiff whose claim was not valid. Yet, careful studies suggest these cases are anomalies, and the court system generally works. While there are no statistics for the country as a whole, based on the existing evidence, we can say confidently that a good chunk of initial claims (likely more than three-quarters) do not move forward because no negligence was involved. The vast majority of cases that do move forward settle.
This means that court signals from earlier trials are clear. If court awards were random, one would expect many more cases to go to court as there would be an expectation of an award even where there was no negligence. Many cases go to court because plaintiffs think they have a case when they do not. We know this because plaintiffs rarely win; less than a quarter of all cases that go to court are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. At least one study found court findings of negligence lined up with assessments by impartial reviewing physicians.'
'every review has found claims are concentrated among a very small subset of physicians; less than five percent of physicians are responsible for the overwhelming share of claims. Even if a large percentage of negligent actions are not reported, it would seem that the present system works in identifying physicians whose practice patterns put patients at risk.'
Thursday, December 15, 2011
It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'But there is no line item in the budget for "waste, fraud, and abuse." Part of the problem is management, which has never been Washington's strong suit. A lot of money is lost due to incompetence or theft. Putting in place the right people and procedures isn't easy.
More basic, however, is the fact that one man's waste is another man's priority. The basic purpose of the national government today is to allow everyone to live off of everyone else. The intent is to give away trillions of dollars. What matters most is giving it away, not giving it away efficiently.'
'The big spending boulders are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, and interest. Cuts here would cause much political pain, which is why politicians prefer not to talk about such possibilities. The people must decide not to have the government do certain things.'
'First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program's underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.
Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.
Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a "virtuous cycle" of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.
Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.'
More basic, however, is the fact that one man's waste is another man's priority. The basic purpose of the national government today is to allow everyone to live off of everyone else. The intent is to give away trillions of dollars. What matters most is giving it away, not giving it away efficiently.'
'The big spending boulders are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, and interest. Cuts here would cause much political pain, which is why politicians prefer not to talk about such possibilities. The people must decide not to have the government do certain things.'
'First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program's underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.
Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.
Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a "virtuous cycle" of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.
Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.'
Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary
Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Political scientists have found that contributions explain little about lawmaking once ideology, party, and constituency are accounted for. One scholarly study of lobbying concluded that "the direct correlation between money and outcomes that so many political scientists have sought simply is not there."'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign-finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars have also found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.
Finally, the rhetoric of campaign finance reform has poisoned public debate. Instead of arguments, voters hear accusations of corruption. Not surprisingly, many attribute problems to malevolent "moneyed interests."
But our fiscal challenges, for example, come from popular and inadequately funded entitlement programs. No surprise there: Voters' desire for benefits without costs is a very democratic failing. But it is a failing Americans have refused to face; it's easier to blame moneyed interests for our problems.'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign-finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars have also found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.
Finally, the rhetoric of campaign finance reform has poisoned public debate. Instead of arguments, voters hear accusations of corruption. Not surprisingly, many attribute problems to malevolent "moneyed interests."
But our fiscal challenges, for example, come from popular and inadequately funded entitlement programs. No surprise there: Voters' desire for benefits without costs is a very democratic failing. But it is a failing Americans have refused to face; it's easier to blame moneyed interests for our problems.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)