A study suggests that a third don't believe they should intervene if another physician is impaired or incompetent.
If your doctor had a drug problem or was impaired in some other way, you would probably hope that colleagues would intervene and see that he gets help. A new survey suggests that doesn't happen very often.
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association said a survey of physicians found that while most support the professional commitment to report other physicians who they feel are incompetent or impaired -- such as from alcohol or drug use -- many did not follow through on making a report when faced with such a situation.
Smart people don't report higher wealth than less intelligent people. They apparently just save less of their larger incomes.
Oscar Wilde died broke, why not you?
OK, bad example. Wilde was an extremely gifted poet and playwright, but he had a lot of personal and legal problems confounding him before his death. This post is about a question that's a little more clear-cut than that: Does being smart make you better with money?
Yeah, it's wide-ranging, and you think you might know the answer off the top of your head. My automatic answer was, "Yes! Of course." Smart people are better at math, which would make them see through to the consequences of their decisions more clearly, right?
I dug up an old Yahoo Answers user who posited the same question. The winning answer had a bunch of mumbo jumbo about common sense versus book smarts and something called a "social IQ." So the Web 1.0 unscientific survey of anonymous Web users named "species456," "Father Christmas," and "Ratz" says intelligence and money aren't correlated at all.
I was hoping to find the definitive economic analysis that would allow Pop to smack Ratz back to the, um, sewer, but (sigh) things are never that clear-cut. So, without further ado, let's get to how smarts affect wealth.
It's not easy to boil down 2,300 pages of new legislation into 1,000 words, but here's the down and dirty of what you need to know.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (.pdf file), otherwise known as financial regulatory reform, will soon be signed into law by President Barack Obama now that Congress has passed it. There's no single article that can fully explain every way in which this sweeping legislation -- all 2,319 pages of it -- will ultimately impact your life. But it's important to understand at least the basics.
Let's have a look inside this new reform measure.
Some brides are making deals for pre-ceremony resales, hoping to recoup part of the cost of designer gowns.
We all can see the economic benefit of buying a used wedding dress or selling your wedding dress after the big day.
New policies will eliminate co-pays or deductibles for some services.
Starting Sept. 23, a range of preventive health care procedures, including colonoscopies and mammograms, must be provided to consumers at no out-of-pocket expense under any new health insurance policy.
The White House said Wednesday that under the health care law passed earlier this year, insurance companies must cover preventive services without the policyholder paying a deductible or co-payment.
Cut the cost of visits to animal attractions year-round.
Consumers visiting animal attractions this summer can count on encountering lions and tigers and -- bargains.
While most of the leisure attraction industry, including amusement parks and museums, struggled to draw consumers during the recession, many zoos and aquariums reported record attendance. The North Carolina Zoo, for example, saw its highest attendance in 13 years during its last fiscal year, which ended June 30. In total, 749,627 people visited -- 20,210 more than during the previous year.
The combination of low entry fees at zoos and aquariums and their proximity to home is a draw for people on a budget, says John Gerner, managing director of Leisure Business Advisors LLC, a Richmond, Va.-based consulting group.
Here's how to save:
They clearly have a significant value conflict. Can they reach a compromise?
Recently, I posted an article about setting goals with your partner. In the comments, Brittany left a wonderful question that I felt deserved a post all its own:
What if you have your shared goals, but one partner doesn't have the financial gumption to see it through? I'm not married, not even engaged, but I'm in a relationship that looks like it might be heading for the long term. But my partner is awful with money and even worse with savings. We have a few shared long/medium-term goals (and one is a life goal of his, so I'm positive it's not my goal; I'm just calling "ours"), but my partner isn't making any progress toward the goal. He's far more likely to make a bunch of little frivolous purchases now. ("Eh, it's just $10 … it's just $20 … I'll save when I have a reasonable amount to save.")
U.S. Tax Court rules that nonprofit status would not be appropriate.
How thoughtful is this? A California sperm bank is willing to donate its product to wannabe moms, who would otherwise have to pay if they can't find their own supplier. Sperm can cost anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars a vial, and you generally need more than one. That's pricey.
So why couldn't that sperm bank obtain nonprofit, tax-exempt status from the IRS? The U.S. Tax Court recently ruled against the Free Fertility Foundation, settling a six-year dispute.
The court cited a couple of reasons, Kathy Kristof reports at CBS MoneyWatch. Most important seems to be that the sperm bank has only one donor -- the foundation's founder and director, Donor fwcn02453.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'