When all taxpayers have to chip in to keep your family farm going, it’s not a family farm anymore; it’s a collective farm. Family farms are quickly becoming a thing of the past. When the state steps in to “preserve” them, it actually transforms once-viable enterprises into repositories for tax dollars.
Statements like this make it clear that pouring money into small farms is a losing proposition:
“Right now it costs more to produce milk than you get paid,” Letterman said.
It’s not unusual to see some ignominious mention of SLPS in newspaper articles about education. The reference goes something like this: “Districts across the country are facing problems, including the Saint Louis Public Schools, which lost accreditation and blah blah blah …”
This Wall Street Journal article is no exception:
Perhaps the boldest marketing push is in St. Louis. The urban district’s enrollment has plunged 40% in the past decade because of students moving to charter schools and suburban districts. The school district has been through eight superintendents in 10 years and lost its state accreditation. It faces a $53 million deficit and recently closed 14 schools.
But administrators have set aside $1 million for pay for publicity that may include bragging about a top-ranked high school and magnet programs in culinary arts, aeronautics and international studies.
I’ve criticized SLPS in the past for obsessing about logos and bashing charter schools. However, this time around SLPS has good reason for marketing. SLPS has started new programs, like a virtual school and choice schools; it has to tell people about them, or no one will know they exist.
The more innovations SLPS comes up with, the more effective its advertising will be in bringing students back to the district.
This is one of those topics with a good chance of starting an argument, which would be swell fun for everyone. In the current debate over our health care system, to which the Show-Me Institute contributed a terrific paper to yesterday, one of the proposals put out there is tort reform. Indeed, our study states among its seven recommendations of how to improve our health care system:
- Reform tort liability laws.
Defensive medicine needlessly drives up medical costs and creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients.
Now, to be clear, this is the last of the seven recommendations and the least discussed within the paper, but how do they mean for it to apply? This exact issue is being discussed all over the web. It also appeared in that great op-ed from the Whole Foods CEO that I linked to yesterday.
The health care bills being discussed are, as you all know, part of a federal issue that has tremendous effects on the states. But, because it is for the most part a federal issue, I’ll stick with how tort reform might be implemented nationally. I fully support tort/malpractice reforms in federal courts. But only a very small percentage of malpractice claims are filed in federal court — usually claims against a veterans hospital, or something like that. The vast majority of malpractice cases occur in state courts, and just four years ago Missouri passed greatly needed comprehensive changes to the state’s malpractice system.
So, are supporters of tort/malpractice reform talking about just changing the malpractice system at the federal level, which would probably be a good thing but would only affect a very low percentage of total cases filed? Are they talking about encouraging states to reform their own malpractice laws, which Missouri has already done very successfully and which I fully supported at the time and still do? Or — stay with me, here — are people who generally support states’ rights arguing in this instance for changing the law so that tighter federal laws would replace and overrule state laws in malpractice cases? I realize that it is incomprehensible that someone, especially a politician, would generally support doing things one way but change that opinion in an instance where it would work against you. (Please note dripping sarcasm.) So, which of the three is it?
I have to fear it is the latter, which is also the only one of the three possibilities I don’t support. Civil tort laws have long been the province of the states (I’ll stand corrected by any lawyers in the audience). Just because a federal takeover/usurpation in this instance might fall along the lines of something I support in general (tighter malpractice laws) does not mean I am going to give up on the 10th Amendment.
Missouri succeeded in making significant improvements to how our system deals with civil justice and malpractice a few years ago. It is my hope that Illinois will also do so soon. However, this is still something for the states to determine, rather than the federal government.
The Illinois boy with autism who I wrote about the other day will be allowed to bring his service dog to school, at least for a short time after the district discusses accommodations and before a full court hearing takes place.
I’m happy that the dog and boy will stay together, and I’m also glad that some of the district’s infuriating arguments were disregarded. The district claims the dog is not a true service dog because he isn’t listed in the boy’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). But the boy’s doctors said he should get a dog, and the dog was specially trained for several thousand dollars, paid for by the parents — that sounds like a service dog to me.
IEP’s can’t be as comprehensive as full medical evaluations; they’re basically lists of learning goals, and shouldn’t override doctors’ orders. And, because the district doesn’t want the dog in class, of course they wouldn’t recommend a dog in an IEP. You can’t conclude that the boy doesn’t need the dog just because the district left dogs out of the document.
This statement by the district Superintendent is misleading:
“If 230 students were to bring animals, it would be catastrophic to the degree it would be uncontrollable and very unhealthy to the students,” Settles said.
We’re not talking about pets brought for show and tell, but animals (usually dogs; I don’t know which other animals the district is expecting) that help children cope with serious medical problems. Dogs have to go through a lot of screening and training before they are given to patients. “Uncontrollable” animals don’t make the cut. I should hope the district would not advance similar arguments against a service dog used because of epilepsy or vision impairment. Autism deserves equal consideration.
Although the judge issued an injunction in the boy’s favor, I’m standing by my assertion that he would be better off with tuition tax credits. No one should have to attend a school that resents his service dog and that fought hard in court to exclude it.
Including Cash for Clunkers. This sentence sums up the experience:
President Barack Obama said in an interview Thursday that the program has been “successful beyond anybody’s imagination” but dealers were overwhelmed by the response of consumers.
Giving out free money (or paying above the market rate, which amounts to the same thing) is a wildly popular policy. No one should be surprised by consumers’ robust response to the opportunity to get something (cash) for nothing (a clunker, by the program’s own admission).
It’s strange to call a program “successful” when it did little more than squander wealth — and so quickly that even Washington politicians realized it couldn’t continue.
Although Cash for Clunkers will drive into the sunset on Monday, the idea lives on in a multitude of other policies that offer attractive payment in exchange for ubiquitous antiques. Like gun buybacks, for example.
The latest Show-Me Institute Policy Study — “The Prognosis for National Health Insurance: A Missouri Perspective” — is shaping up to be a slam dunk.
Produced by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, the study gives some historical perspective on the growth of the public sector’s role in paying for health care expenses, and provides an analysis of the effect of a public health care plan on Missouri residents. The study spells out the expected costs such a plan would impose per capita on Missouri residents, as well as making predictions about inflated medical costs overall in the face of increased bureaucratic distance between health care producers and consumers.
And it’s getting attention. Missourinet ran a segment about it, and it was also featured on Jamie Allman’s radio show yesterday, as well as some more attention from him while he was guest hosting for The Laura Ingraham Show this morning. So far, it has also been featured in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Springfield News-Leader. This coverage combined to break our previous single-day study download record yesterday, and we’ve already more than doubled that number so far today.
Why wait? Read the study that everyone is talking about. Or, if time will simply not permit, at least check out the four-page briefing paper.
Many school districts don’t have the resources to provide intensive services for autistic students — or the ability to accommodate their service animals. This article reports on a boy whose parents are suing his school district because it refused to allow his service dog in a kindergarten class.
There are merits to both sides of the dispute. The boy’s behavior is improved when his service dog is around, and it would be a big disruption for him to be separated from the dog for several hours every school day. But, from the district’s point of view, the teacher and classmates expect to go to school with people, not dogs. Some could be afraid of animals or allergic.
It’s not that one side is right and the other wrong, just that they’re a poor match. The district would be better off leaving its classrooms free of dogs. And the boy with autism would benefit from an environment that’s more accepting of his condition and its treatment.
Many of my friends are involved in discussions about health care. A common thing I hear is that people are happy with the parts of the health care system that affect them personally. Often, there is a story, such as: Doctor (you supply the name) found a cancer in my (you supply the relative); he/she started therapy just in time and that person’s life was saved.
That is wonderful. But is that all there is? The health care debate seems centered on financial issues. Where is the dialogue about health? With all the talk in the news and elsewhere, is something missing? Could your health be better?
Missouri is blessed with many health care educational programs. There is the Saint Louis University Medical School, the first school west of the Mississippi, founded in 1836. Then there is the School of Medicine at Washington University, the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, the University of Missouri–Columbia Medical School, the University of Missouri–Kansas City Medical School, and the College of Osteopathy in Kansas City. In addition, there are plans to build a program in Joplin. If so many physicians are being produced, then health care in this state should be pretty good. Is it?
To find out about that, one must look at how the health care system product is measured. Although asking your aunt about her cardiologist and how well he responds to her needs can be helpful, aggregate data is needed to get valid information. The common tools used by states to measure health care system outcomes are: 1) life expectancy; and, 2) infant mortality.
According to the World Bank, “life expectancy at birth is the average number of years a newborn infant would be expected to live if health and living conditions at the time of its birth remained the same throughout its life.” That definition includes both the current health of a population and the quality of care people receive when sick.
In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau said that life expectancy in Missouri was 76.2 years, and it has improved since then to 76.4. That can be contrasted with 78.5 in Iowa, 77.5 in Kansas, 76.7 in Illinois, 75.3 in Kentucky, 75.3 in Oklahoma, 75.1 in Arkansas, and 75.0 in Tennessee. Missouri is in the mid-range among our adjoining states, but not at the top, and many states have life expectancy rates higher than ours.
In 2009, the average life expectancy for the entire United States was 78.11, and more than half the people in this country were doing better than Missourians. What is most disturbing is that there are several countries in 2009 with life expectancy rates better than ours. With this measure, many people are found to have better health than we have in the United States, and in America many states are reported to have better health care results than we have in Missouri.
The second most frequently used gauge of health care system outcomes is the infant mortality rate. It is used to evaluate prenatal care, postnatal care, and all the other aspects of society that affect young children. The following are the rates for infants under one year of age per 1,000 live births in 2005. In Missouri it is 7.5, Kansas 7.4, Iowa 5.3, Illinois 7.4, Kentucky 6.6, Tennessee 8.9, Arkansas 7.9, and Oklahoma 8.1. Our state, again, is in the middle range. That year, the infant mortality rate for the entire US was 6.89 per 1,000 live births. Once again, it seems that Missouri’s health care results are not as good as the average for our country.
How does this compare with the rest of the world? Many international organizations study this. The easiest numbers to access come from groups interested in economics, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Among OECD nations, the average is 6.1 per 1,000 live births. The United States is not too far from that average — but Missouri is. In 2005, there were five countries with infant mortality rates of less than 3.5. What is the difference? Do they care more about their children than we do?
What is the matter with health care in Missouri? These are only a couple of the areas that need improvement. Please be sure that your quality of health is included in the health care discussion.
