PDA

View Full Version : Licensing Removes Consumer Choice, Harms Poor




nickcoons
11-28-2008, 03:53 PM
http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=24

There are many professions and businesses in the US that require a license, which is simple a government grant to operate. Most licenses in our country have sprung up over the last hundred years, and are created and lobbied through the legislature by special interests.

The first licensing laws were created as a way to institute racial and class discrimination. They prevented newly-liberated slaves from starting and owning their own businesses, putting them at a disadvantage to whites. Licenses can also be prohibitively expensive, thereby allowing only those that already have money to enter into a job or industry.

In New York City, a special license is required to operate and drive a taxi. The number of licenses is limited and has not been increased since 1937, so the only way to operate a cab legally in New York City is to purchase a license from someone who is retiring from the business. Today, this special medallion sells for around $200,000 (and up). For able-bodied drivers that don't have access to that kind of cash, they are unable to provide transportation services even to those that would willingly pay them. For those that are able to afford the excruciating licensing costs, they must charge higher rates in order to make a profit with such overhead. To do so, they tend to service only the affluent areas, leaving the lower-income areas without transportation services. Those that are unlicensed but would provide a legitimate transportation service in lower-income areas for an affordable price are prevented by law from doing so.

In the early part of the 20th century, licenses in the health care industry were virtually unheard of. An individual could cover their medical costs for about two dollars per year (in "1920 dollars", which would equate to about $50-$75 today for a year's worth of health coverage).

Dissatisfied with low-cost services, and the concept of common tradesmen sitting in judgment of the quality of services provided by well-educated doctors, small groups of physicians lobbied Congress to institute legislation that required physicians to be licensed in order to legally practice. Licensing reduced the supply of physicians because many didn't meet the strict and arbitrary guidelines of the governing boards. With a decrease in supply comes an increase in prices. In fact, Congress was lobbied specifically because the cost of health care was too low. And if Congress can fix anything, it's affordable pricing, as we can see from the high cost of health care today.

It's clear that licensing laws not only restrict entry into the market by the otherwise underprivileged, but they have the negative consequence of eliminating choice and increasing prices for the rest of us. The common question that comes next is, "But without licensing laws, how do we protect consumers?" That is indeed a very common question, given that all licensing laws are passed under the guise of protecting consumers.

Thinking about this for a moment, you can see that it might be insulting to people's intelligence. Imagine if someone were to hang a sign on their garage that said, "Brain surgery, $100." Would you patronize such an establishment? I would say not. Just as with any important purchases or life-altering decisions, you would seek out references, interview potential providers to learn if they had the needed skills, and research credentials to determine if you were comfortable with the provider or product. This is true whether searching for a doctor, purchasing a car, a house, or deciding how to educate your children. As consumers, we engage in due diligence to make sure that we were making the correct choices. In fact, licensing often interferes with this process, because it provides a false sense of security that someone else has done the research for us; and rarely, if ever, is that the case.

UnReconstructed
11-28-2008, 05:08 PM
I didn't read the article but I agree with the subject line.

Working Poor
11-28-2008, 05:10 PM
I so agree with this article.

Even though I have all the right education and have been practicing in my field for over twenty years, I lost my professional license because I could not afford my fees and now I can hardly pay my bills working in what ever job I can find for low pay.

It really hurts my heart I can have food stamps but, I can't get the financial help I need to get my license back. In foreclosure right now I am really worried about where I can go. I only have a temporary job. I can't believe how fast I have fallen.

Zippyjuan
11-28-2008, 05:13 PM
I think I would rather see a doctor who has been certified than allowing anybody who wants to be able to call themselves a doctor. Licensing may be needless in some fields but encourage quality and standards for other industries. No matter what you want to do there is some sort of barrier to entry. I don't see that as the main reason health care costs so much. The licensing is a very low portion of the costs of becoming a doctor. In this country, administrative overhead mostly related to insurance paperwork is responsible for some 30% of healthcare costs.

A comparison between costs in the US and Canada reveal that we have higher administration costs than they do. They license their doctors too.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.


ABSTRACT

Background A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs.

Methods For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners' offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending, we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.

Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

acptulsa
11-28-2008, 05:18 PM
The thing is, some licensing is necessary. The radio spectrum comes to mind. If more than one enterprise broadcasts on the same frequency in the same area, what's the point?

The trick is drawing the line in the right place. A place it certainly isn't at now.

krazy kaju
11-28-2008, 05:30 PM
I think I would rather see a doctor who has been certified than allowing anybody who wants to be able to call themselves a doctor. Licensing may be needless in some fields but encourage quality and standards for other industries.

You don't trust yourself to find a good doctor?


No matter what you want to do there is some sort of barrier to entry.

So this makes it okay to impose new and bigger barriers of entry?


I don't see that as the main reason health care costs so much. The licensing is a very low portion of the costs of becoming a doctor.

Licensing restricts the supply of doctors. It prevents people without MDs, like nurses or medical bachelors, from doing simple things that they aren't legally allowed to do (i.e. writing prescriptions). Furthermore, it prevents a doctor in Ohio from working in Michigan, or a doctor from Canada working in America, etc.

It has been empirically proven (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-621.pdf) that licensing is a large part of health care costs.


In this country, administrative overhead mostly related to insurance paperwork is responsible for some 30% of healthcare costs.

Are you sure? (http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf)


A comparison between costs in the US and Canada reveal that we have higher administration costs than they do. They license their doctors too.

Maybe that would be a good reason to remove the regulations that prop up these high administration costs?

But remember, not all administrative costs are necessarily bad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/business/22scene.html)

Danke
11-28-2008, 05:45 PM
The thing is, some licensing is necessary. The radio spectrum comes to mind. If more than one enterprise broadcasts on the same frequency in the same area, what's the point?

The trick is drawing the line in the right place. A place it certainly isn't at now.

What do you know of the radio wave spectrum? Especially now that we use digital. I have had conversations with some very knowledgeable radio operators that explained how the free market would easily work there without government interference. Quite fascinating and eye opening to one that has been brain washed to government control as a good thing in this area.

satchelmcqueen
11-28-2008, 06:04 PM
yep. i was very good at my job , but lost it in the recent round of layoffs to people who were also good, but yet had schooling or degrees in my field. either way i made the company more money and was faster and better at my job than some who got to stay. sometimes its all just a way for the bosses to brag.

sratiug
11-28-2008, 06:50 PM
I think I would rather see a doctor who has been certified than allowing anybody who wants to be able to call themselves a doctor. Licensing may be needless in some fields but encourage quality and standards for other industries. No matter what you want to do there is some sort of barrier to entry. I don't see that as the main reason health care costs so much. The licensing is a very low portion of the costs of becoming a doctor. In this country, administrative overhead mostly related to insurance paperwork is responsible for some 30% of healthcare costs.

A comparison between costs in the US and Canada reveal that we have higher administration costs than they do. They license their doctors too.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

When's the last time your doctor spoke to you about your ph? Licensing Doctors or Lawyers cannot make them not morons, no matter how much they pay for their Title of Nobility. Free trade in the legal profession should be our highest priority, with medical second. A real tariff would be much less destructive to free trade than all these aristocratic ones.

krazy kaju
11-28-2008, 07:20 PM
The thing is, some licensing is necessary. The radio spectrum comes to mind. If more than one enterprise broadcasts on the same frequency in the same area, what's the point?

The trick is drawing the line in the right place. A place it certainly isn't at now.

Are you sure?

The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology by B.K. Marcus (http://mises.org/story/1662)

nickcoons
11-28-2008, 07:22 PM
I think I would rather see a doctor who has been certified than allowing anybody who wants to be able to call themselves a doctor.

Certifications are just fine, and I have no problem with you making that choice for yourself. I have a problem with others making that choice for me.

Just as in my article, I would not (and I imagine most people would not) go to just anyone because they call themselves a doctor. On the other hand, if someone wanted to go to just anyone that called themselves a doctor, that should be their choice, and they would accept the responsibility of making such a reckless decision.


Licensing may be needless in some fields but encourage quality and standards for other industries.

This is the guise under which licensing laws are passed; it is the argument used to persuade people that they are good and necessary. Unfortunately, they do no such thing.


No matter what you want to do there is some sort of barrier to entry. I don't see that as the main reason health care costs so much. The licensing is a very low portion of the costs of becoming a doctor.

It is not the cost of licensing that causes health care costs to rise, it is the fact that licensing limits the supply. Whenever supply is limited, costs rise. That's very basic economics. Supplies can be limited naturally (i.e. natural disasters), or they can be limited artificially, which is usually through licensing. Artificially limiting the supply of something is market interference that benefits a few (those interfering) and harms the rest of us with increased costs.


In this country, administrative overhead mostly related to insurance paperwork is responsible for some 30% of healthcare costs.

I don't know if that number is accurate, but I would believe it, and I do know that administrative costs due to insurance are higher than they should be. I have several clients that are doctors, and they have a disproportionate number of people on staff that do nothing but such administrative work.

This ties in with legislation passed by Congress in the early 70s that unnaturally tied employment to health coverage, incentivizing people to use what should be health insurance as pre-paid health care. Health insurance is over-utilized. Other forms of insurance seem to be utilized just fine. I call my auto insurance provider when I've been in a collision, but not when I need an oil change, a tire rotation, or more gas. I call my home-owner's insurance if I have a fire, but not if my house needs a new coat of paint, or if the lawn needs to be mowed. While we don't use insurance for regular maintenance in most areas, we use it regularly for "maintenance" of our health. This is what causes it to be over-utilized. And again, this unnatural coupling is because of legislation.

However, this is an entirely different topic (not related to licensing), and also adds significantly to health care costs.


The thing is, some licensing is necessary. The radio spectrum comes to mind. If more than one enterprise broadcasts on the same frequency in the same area, what's the point?

Radio waves can be treated as land and owned as private property. I'm sure there are other free-market proposals that are just as feasible or even better, but this is one.

heavenlyboy34
11-28-2008, 07:39 PM
I would say I agree with your point, Nick.

I would add that certification is not always bad, so long as government does not have a monopoly over it. For example, pilots. In a laissez-faire society, private organizations would be able to issues pilot's licenses. The market would determine which issuer has the most credibility in the people it licenses. Individuals would have the option of hiring someone with or without credentials-weighing the risk as they see fit. The best would rise to prosperity, the mediocre would fail. (IMHO)

nickcoons
11-28-2008, 07:58 PM
I would say I agree with your point, Nick.

I would add that certification is not always bad, so long as government does not have a monopoly over it. For example, pilots. In a laissez-faire society, private organizations would be able to issues pilot's licenses. The market would determine which issuer has the most credibility in the people it licenses. Individuals would have the option of hiring someone with or without credentials-weighing the risk as they see fit. The best would rise to prosperity, the mediocre would fail. (IMHO)

This is how it works in technology. There are many certification programs put out by well-known vendors (Microsoft, Cisco, RedHat, etc) and these are all completely voluntary, which require being able to pass a test that verifies an understanding of the material. Employers or individuals can then use the existence or lack of certification in making their hiring decisions. The industry quickly learns which certifications are bogus because of how those holding the certificate perform (and thereby put little faith into that certification when they see it on a resume), and they learn which ones are good indicators of performance in exactly the same way.

Then there are government licenses. In Phoenix, there are companies that install electrically-powered signs in shopping centers. This process involves installing high-voltage cabling along with building the sign, and doing this such that it is installed safely. To own a company that provides this service, you need a license issued by the city. In order to acquire the license, you need to take a test. But the test asks nothing about building signs, installing high-voltage electrical line, or anything like that. No, instead it asks questions such as "What is the process for filing your monthly tax reports?" In fact, all of the questions on the test are related to the back-end administration of running the business. Once you pass this test, you are issued a license to perform this dangerous work, without anyone knowing whether or not you're qualified. Furthermore, only the business must be licensed. Those that you hire to actually do the work need no such license, so they're even further removed from the process.

Most people don't know this, so when they hire a government-licensed sign installer, they are given a false sense of security that someone has done their due diligence in order to make sure that the sign installer knows what he's doing.

Government licensing does nothing to protect consumers from making bad purchasing decisions. It only makes it appear that it does, which is more dangerous because it causes consumers to let down their guard thinking that this part of the buying process (the research to verify vendor competence) has already been done for them.

WRellim
11-28-2008, 09:30 PM
Well written and well reasoned.

In regards to your statement and the common question:


The common question that comes next is, "But without licensing laws, how do we protect consumers?" That is indeed a very common question, given that all licensing laws are passed under the guise of protecting consumers.

Thinking about this for a moment, you can see that it might be insulting to people's intelligence. Imagine if someone were to hang a sign on their garage that said, "Brain surgery, $100." Would you patronize such an establishment? I would say not. Just as with any important purchases or life-altering decisions, you would seek out references, interview potential providers to learn if they had the needed skills, and research credentials to determine if you were comfortable with the provider or product. This is true whether searching for a doctor, purchasing a car, a house, or deciding how to educate your children. As consumers, we engage in due diligence to make sure that we were making the correct choices. In fact, licensing often interferes with this process, because it provides a false sense of security that someone else has done the research for us; and rarely, if ever, is that the case.First, I absolutely agree that "licensing" provides a FALSE sense of security. Indeed I would also argue that it provides a further false sense of "authority" -- especially within the realm of legal liability; Courts grant a legal "presumption" of competence and "expertise" to licensed individuals that needlessly raises the burden of evidence required to refute their "opinions" when they are offered in the form of "evidence" -- this makes proving abuse and/or neglect difficult in legal cases (and needlessly makes such cases much more expensive).

As to what can "replace" licensing? Many examples exist within the realm of private professionals in the "unlicensed" professions -- ones where competence is a bit harder to fake. For example the "ASE" certifications for auto mechanics (http://www.asecert.org/) which is a private and VOLUNTARY certification system -- while not a "guarantee" of either competence OR ethical work -- it DOES provide a mechanism for assisting the buyer of the service in selecting a provider. Similarly, in the fast-moving world of IT, there are many "certifications" that can provide at least a small degree of confidence in a person's level of training and thus "weeding out" of those who have failed to demonstrate any skill or training. (At the same time, I certainly would NOT advocate any substantial "reliance" upon such certifications, for I have seen far too many INcompetent people who managed to "cram" their way through various certification exams, yet who have little or no actual understanding of the skills they profess to have.)

But I would state that such "certifications" -- because they have valid "question marks" around them -- are inherently BETTER than the current "licensing" situation. The buyer is (typically) aware that the certifications are NOT a guarantee, and therefore they are more likely to be cautious regarding the selection of their providers, using the certification as simply ONE factor of many in their choice.

Again, excellent article, and glad to see the subject being addressed, as I think it is ONE of the factors at the root level of many of our society's manifold problems.

WRellim
11-28-2008, 09:33 PM
This is how it works in technology. There are many certification programs put out by well-known vendors (Microsoft, Cisco, RedHat, etc) and these are all completely voluntary, which require being able to pass a test that verifies an understanding of the material. Employers or individuals can then use the existence or lack of certification in making their hiring decisions. The industry quickly learns which certifications are bogus because of how those holding the certificate perform (and thereby put little faith into that certification when they see it on a resume), and they learn which ones are good indicators of performance in exactly the same way.

Then there are government licenses. In Phoenix, there are companies that install electrically-powered signs in shopping centers. This process involves installing high-voltage cabling along with building the sign, and doing this such that it is installed safely. To own a company that provides this service, you need a license issued by the city. In order to acquire the license, you need to take a test. But the test asks nothing about building signs, installing high-voltage electrical line, or anything like that. No, instead it asks questions such as "What is the process for filing your monthly tax reports?" In fact, all of the questions on the test are related to the back-end administration of running the business. Once you pass this test, you are issued a license to perform this dangerous work, without anyone knowing whether or not you're qualified. Furthermore, only the business must be licensed. Those that you hire to actually do the work need no such license, so they're even further removed from the process.

Most people don't know this, so when they hire a government-licensed sign installer, they are given a false sense of security that someone has done their due diligence in order to make sure that the sign installer knows what he's doing.

Government licensing does nothing to protect consumers from making bad purchasing decisions. It only makes it appear that it does, which is more dangerous because it causes consumers to let down their guard thinking that this part of the buying process (the research to verify vendor competence) has already been done for them.


BINGO!


Wow... looks like you addressed the certification aspect very well.

WONDERFUL to see someone well versed and SO well spoken on this issue!
:):):):):):):):):):)

WRellim
11-28-2008, 09:51 PM
yep. i was very good at my job , but lost it in the recent round of layoffs to people who were also good, but yet had schooling or degrees in my field. either way i made the company more money and was faster and better at my job than some who got to stay. sometimes its all just a way for the bosses to brag.

Actually in my experience certs are normally used by ignorant/incompetent people as a way to CYA their choices of employee hires.

As in "How was I to know they were incompetent? They had a degree/certification in _________?" -- I've seen that exact same scenario happen OVER and OVER again and again... its enough to make one sick.

In my career, I have hired and fired dozens of individuals. Nearly every single individual that I had to fire for blatant incompetence... had MORE than one degree/certification in their field.

Conversely, nearly all of the people I hired who were self-taught or "learned on the job" were good, solid, and (in part because of a paradoxical "humility" combined with "confidence") they were able to adapt to new systems and situations or tasks with a high level of success; Whereas the degreed/cert'd individuals all seemed to have an innate "arrogance" accompanied by a "child-like" demand for "more training" (meaning "spoon-fed" schooling versus independent reading/research) whenever faced with anything outside of their prior experience.

All of which has made me very biased AGAINST people with degrees, and biased FOR people who are autodidacts. (For example if I see that someone lists a "course" that they took to "learn HTML" -- that tells me they will be a "high-maintenance" employee -- and I know that I will need to "spoon-feed" them everything in order to get a job done to my satisfaction.)

WRellim
11-28-2008, 09:55 PM
The thing is, some licensing is necessary. The radio spectrum comes to mind. If more than one enterprise broadcasts on the same frequency in the same area, what's the point?

The trick is drawing the line in the right place. A place it certainly isn't at now.


When it comes to the radio spectrum -- this could easily be handled by a system of property rights (either sold or "leased") and the licensing could be foregone.

Then any and all "cross-frequency" squatting could be handled by the courts in the same way that physical trespassing is handled (what happens is one enterprise "parks" its equipment on the land of another enterprise?). No need for "licensing" really exists there; and licensing is an INFERIOR way to handle such things (but it certainly has other "aspects" -- such as control and manipulation by governments and bureaucrats -- whicch would be more difficult with a property schema).

Working Poor
11-29-2008, 09:17 AM
I am a certified massage therapist. I have a high degree of education along these lines more than most massage therapist practicing today with a license in my state. I have 10,000's of hours of practice under my belt.

I used to do quite a bit of volunteer work with this. Probably I did more volunteer work than paid. I worked enough to pay for my needs as far as housing, food and transportation. I felt like I was doing what I ought to do for myself and my fellow man.

I used to be a highly motivated high energy person. Now I feel washed up and like a burden to society I am not even allowed to work with people for free. It feels just terrible.

I am older now and I work in restaurants on a part time and temporary basis with kids who are in high school and college. I do these jobs to try and survive but I am behind in every since of the word.

I want to do what is right and abide by the laws of my state and be legal and, there is never enough money left over for me to put aside to help pay for my licensure and insurance. People called me for a while asking me to work with them but because I had been ordered by the state to cease and desist massage therapy I complied. I have ruined my own reputation in my field because I was honest on my application by saying I had practiced without a license. My colleagues all admonished me for "being honest" with the board now I am screwed.

Boards are really not too concerned with qualifications they are more concerned with filing on time and paying fees. Just because a doctor went to school paid their fees does not necessarily make them a good doctor.

As long as a person graduates from a 6 month massage therapy school and pays for their license here in my state they can practice massage therapy. Many of which are doing highly unethical actions with their clients. But as long as they lie about their practice on the forms they fill out for the state and pay for the continuing ed courses and pass them and send in the money at the right time they are allowed to practice.

I work with shut in elederly who have no body in their lives for free but I cannot practice because I didn't pay in time cause I did not have enough money. I have a BA degree in physiology and well over 2000 continuing ed credits it does not make since to me.

I also know a doctor who was not allowed to practice in hospitals and only allowed a very limited practice. But he was a very good doctor I only wish I could find someone like him today. He did not accept insurance and he would treat people who had no money. I can't remember why he was not allowed to practiced in hospitals but it was something dumb...I will find out why and post about it.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 11:01 AM
You don't trust yourself to find a good doctor?

How would I know what a good doctor is unless I am a doctor myself?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 11:05 AM
Individuals would have the option of hiring someone with or without credentials-weighing the risk as they see fit. The best would rise to prosperity, the mediocre would fail. (IMHO)

How would I know a good pilot from a bad one unless I am a pilot myself?

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2008, 11:07 AM
How would I know a good pilot from a bad one unless I am a pilot myself?

Get a referral from a reputable organization. :) A private organization with practical experience of flight certainly couldn't be worse than the FAA. ;)

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:09 AM
How would I know what a good doctor is unless I am a doctor myself?

How do I know what a good car is unless I am a car myself?

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:11 AM
How would I know a good pilot from a bad one unless I am a pilot myself?

How would I know a good woman from a bad one unless I am a woman myself? :D

Danke
11-29-2008, 11:16 AM
How would I know a good woman from a bad one unless I am a woman myself? :D

There should be some sort of certification agency set up to help with that.

nickcoons
11-29-2008, 11:26 AM
How would I know what a good doctor is unless I am a doctor myself?


How would I know a good pilot from a bad one unless I am a pilot myself?

In the absence of government-issued licensing, the free market would provide consumer protection groups.

Some such groups exist now, like Underwriters Laboratories (http://www.ul.com/). A UL approval is voluntary, but virtually every electronics maker wants their devices UL-approved, because UL has a positive reputation which makes their approval valuable. For that same reason, UL will not sell-out their approval to an unfit product, because a bogus approval would mean a scar on that reputation.

This could work in any number of ways. An entrepreneurial individual might see the opportunity to help inform consumers about the quality of health care providers. So he sets up his organization where he seeks out doctors, learns about their credentials, rates them accordingly, and publishes that information for consumers. Once he has an established reputation of providing valuable and accurate assessments, doctors will then seek him out and want to pay him to be approved. A doctor's office might have a decal in the window that says that they have received approval by this organization. But just like with UL, the investigative organization won't hand out their approval to just anyone who's not qualified, because once their reputation as an accurate investigative organization has been tarnished, their approval and therefore the entire business itself loses all value.

The other benefit of free market consumer groups over government licensing is that competition is possible. If one consumer group were to get too large, or to have a personal agenda (approving MDs, but not homeopathic doctors, for instance), they might would become vulnerable to other consumer groups that may take their place in the market if they discontinue offering a valuable service.

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2008, 11:31 AM
QFT
Laissez-faire FTW!! :)


In the absence of government-issued licensing, the free market would provide consumer protection groups.

Some such groups exist now, like Underwriters Laboratories (http://www.ul.com/). A UL approval is voluntary, but virtually every electronics maker wants their devices UL-approved, because UL has a positive reputation which makes their approval valuable. For that same reason, UL will not sell-out their approval to an unfit product, because a bogus approval would mean a scar on that reputation.

This could work in any number of ways. An entrepreneurial individual might see the opportunity to help inform consumers about the quality of health care providers. So he sets up his organization where he seeks out doctors, learns about their credentials, rates them accordingly, and publishes that information for consumers. Once he has an established reputation of providing valuable and accurate assessments, doctors will then seek him out and want to pay him to be approved. A doctor's office might have a decal in the window that says that they have received approval by this organization. But just like with UL, the investigative organization won't hand out their approval to just anyone who's not qualified, because once their reputation as an accurate investigative organization has been tarnished, their approval and therefore the entire business itself loses all value.

The other benefit of free market consumer groups over government licensing is that competition is possible. If one consumer group were to get too large, or to have a personal agenda (approving MDs, but not homeopathic doctors, for instance), they might would become vulnerable to other consumer groups that may take their place in the market if they discontinue offering a valuable service.

sratiug
11-29-2008, 11:50 AM
How would I know what a good doctor is unless I am a doctor myself?

How would I know a troll from a Ron Paul supporter? It's easy... they'd be for government interference in private affairs. You know that Dr. Paul is in favor of allowing pharmacists to prescribe drugs, don't you? And against the FDA. And that a medical or legal license or any other state granted license is a Title of Nobility forbidden under the US Constitution...

Working Poor
11-29-2008, 12:37 PM
How do you know that just because a person has some pieces of paper hanging on their wall that they are in fact who they say they are?

How do you know that just because a person who calls them self a doctor and pays their fees on time to a detached licensing board is a good doctor? You don't know.

One of the leading causes of death in the USA is from being prescribed the wrong medication by doctors who have a license.

There are still people who trust the FDA to approve drugs and additives to food to be harmless. Most of us here know that the FDA is a money grubbing government office of corruption that does not really care what happens to the public as long as there is money to be made.

Zippyjuan
11-29-2008, 02:53 PM
One of the leading causes of death in the USA is from being prescribed the wrong medication by doctors who have a license.



Got anything to back that up?
Numbers for hospital deaths due to care mistakes can be difficult because it may be sometimes hard to know if a patient would have survived had they been given proper care. There were two studies conducted in the 1990s which tried to look at hospital deaths. Deaths due to any reason are unfortunate.


Estimating Hospital Deaths Due to Medical Errors
Preventability Is in the Eye of the Reviewer

Rodney A. Hayward, MD; Timothy P. Hofer, MD,MS


JAMA. 2001;286:415-420.

Context Studies using physician implicit review have suggested that the number of deaths due to medical errors in US hospitals is extremely high. However, some have questioned the validity of these estimates.

Objective To examine the reliability of reviewer ratings of medical error and the implications of a death described as "preventable by better care" in terms of the probability of immediate and short-term survival if care had been optimal.

Design Retrospective implicit review of medical records from 1995-1996.

Setting and Participants Fourteen board-certified, trained internists used a previously tested structured implicit review instrument to conduct 383 reviews of 111 hospital deaths at 7 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, oversampling for markers previously found to be associated with high rates of preventable deaths. Patients considered terminally ill who received comfort care only were excluded.

Main Outcome Measures Reviewer estimates of whether deaths could have been prevented by optimal care (rated on a 5-point scale) and of the probability that patients would have lived to discharge or for 3 months or more if care had been optimal (rated from 0%-100%).

Results Similar to previous studies, almost a quarter (22.7%) of active-care patient deaths were rated as at least possibly preventable by optimal care, with 6.0% rated as probably or definitely preventable. Interrater reliability for these ratings was also similar to previous studies (0.34 for 2 reviewers). The reviewers' estimates of the percentage of patients who would have left the hospital alive had optimal care been provided was 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-8.6%). However, after considering 3-month prognosis and adjusting for the variability and skewness of reviewers' ratings, clinicians estimated that only 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) of patients who died would have lived 3 months or more in good cognitive health if care had been optimal, representing roughly 1 patient per 10 000 admissions to the study hospitals.
Conclusions Medical errors are a major concern regardless of patients' life expectancies, but our study suggests that previous interpretations of medical error statistics are probably misleading. Our data place the estimates of preventable deaths in context, pointing out the limitations of this means of identifying medical errors and assessing their potential implications for patient outcomes.


Author Affiliations: Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and Departments of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Ann Arbor.



I know this is not exactly deaths by prescription but those numbers are probably lower. More people die from misusing or abusing their own prescriptions than errors by the doctor or pharmacist. This article here says it is possible (just an estimate) that up to 20% of the hospital deaths in the studies I link to above may have been due to prescription error. http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=2639

Twenty percent of one in ten thousand is not many.

M House
11-29-2008, 02:57 PM
Um just look at the time and consideration your average doctor spends on writing your prescription when it could be potentially fatal. Hell could you even read it?

Matt Collins
11-29-2008, 03:32 PM
I didn't read the article but I agree with the subject line.RTFA?!?!? Naaaw.... who does that anymore? :rolleyes: ;):p:cool::D

Zippyjuan
11-29-2008, 04:04 PM
Um just look at the time and consideration your average doctor spends on writing your prescription when it could be potentially fatal. Hell could you even read it?
Definately a problem which needs to be addressed. But would allowing anybody who wants to call themselves a doctor do so help the issue? I think not.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 04:48 PM
How would I know a troll from a Ron Paul supporter?

Go fuck yourself with a bamboo cane dipped in salmonella

It is a roll of the government is to protect against fraud. Without a certification process, you will see a rise of fraudulent "doctors" who have less than reputable training. This will ultimately harm the lower income families. Nobody has to go through a private certification. They can just open up shop wherever they want.

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 05:02 PM
Go fuck yourself with a bamboo cane dipped in salmonella

It is a roll of the government is to protect against fraud. Without a certification process, you will see a rise of fraudulent "doctors" who have less than reputable training. This will ultimately harm the lower income families. Nobody has to go through a private certification. They can just open up shop wherever they want.

What if the electrochemical processes in their brains make them open up a private medical practice without the government's permission?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 05:10 PM
the electrochemical processes in their brains

Do you seriously not believe that the brain works by the transmission of chemical signals between neurons?

krazy kaju
11-29-2008, 05:12 PM
Go fuck yourself with a bamboo cane dipped in salmonella

It is a roll of the government is to protect against fraud. Without a certification process, you will see a rise of fraudulent "doctors" who have less than reputable training. This will ultimately harm the lower income families. Nobody has to go through a private certification. They can just open up shop wherever they want.

You wouldn't look at a private business if they were certified by a reputable private organization? Would you even need a private certificate?

Is your hair stylist certified by government? Is your priest/pastor/reverend/imam/rabbi/etc. certified by government [edit: I see you're atheist]? Is the company you bought your bike from certified to make bikes by the government? Are your friends certified by government?

If government's role is to protect you from fraud, it does so by protecting you from fraud. Creating a certification process is not protection from fraud, it is protection for the certified against the uncertified.

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Do you seriously not believe that the brain works by the transmission of chemical signals between neurons?

I see you haven't answered my question, Mitt. Why is that? Could it be because you don't want to face the consequences of what your worldview leads to?

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 07:16 PM
So who's gonna make sure the government certifiers are qualified to certify?

Danke
11-29-2008, 07:22 PM
So who's gonna make sure the government certifiers are qualified to certify?

The chief certifier, duh.

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 07:28 PM
The chief certifier, duh.

And we chose him by democratic election, right? And if we dont like the result of the election, we sue in court and the judge decides for us right? :D

forsmant
11-29-2008, 07:53 PM
So who's gonna make sure the government certifiers are qualified to certify?

Me!:p The Better Business Bureau or a similar free market certified of quality and performance.

The_Orlonater
11-29-2008, 08:10 PM
You wouldn't look at a private business if they were certified by a reputable private organization? Would you even need a private certificate?

Is your hair stylist certified by government? Is your priest/pastor/reverend/imam/rabbi/etc. certified by government [edit: I see you're atheist]? Is the company you bought your bike from certified to make bikes by the government? Are your friends certified by government?

If government's role is to protect you from fraud, it does so by protecting you from fraud. Creating a certification process is not protection from fraud, it is protection for the certified against the uncertified.

Fraud as in if anybody does something fradulent in a businuess, like lie about a product, a service or product does some harm to you. Things like that.

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 08:13 PM
Fraud as in if anybody does something fradulent in a businuess, like lie about a product, a service or product does some harm to you. Things like that.

We dont need private businesses to do that, we have the FDA to defraud us. And we pay them to do so. Yaay!

The_Orlonater
11-29-2008, 08:17 PM
We dont need private businesses to do that, we have the FDA to defraud us. And we pay them to do so. Yaay!

Well, in our day and age we have government fraud. I'm talking about my little perfect world. :D

krazy kaju
11-29-2008, 08:51 PM
Fraud as in if anybody does something fradulent in a businuess, like lie about a product, a service or product does some harm to you. Things like that.

I was specifically referring to, if, say your lawyer said he went to Harvard Law, but he didn't and you hired him/her partially based on that information. That's fraud and should be illegal.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 09:32 PM
Is your hair stylist certified by government?

Um. . . yes. Hair stylists need a license. They must meet proper sanitation codes as well.

The_Orlonater
11-29-2008, 09:34 PM
Um. . . yes. Hair stylists need a license. They must meet proper sanitation codes as well.

I've seen some more "unsanitary" places with licenses.

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 09:40 PM
I've seen some more "unsanitary" places with licenses.

You have been to a public school too? :D

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 09:41 PM
So Im guessing everyone here is in favor of getting rid of the drivers license system?

Danke
11-29-2008, 09:45 PM
So Im guessing everyone here is in favor of getting rid of the drivers license system?

No, just keeping it in its current proper place, that of regulating commerce, ie. the commercial licenses.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 09:54 PM
See, here is the problem. Its not a question of licensing. Thats the mistake everyone, including Friedman, is making. licensing is simply the end result of education. The only people applying for a medical license are those who have been through medical school. The real dispute is education. When you make the argument that licensing restricts the field, you are really making the claim that education restricts the field.

In the end, the your entire argument comes down to, "licensing restricts the medical field to those trained in medicine"

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 09:58 PM
No, just keeping it in its current proper place, that of regulating commerce, ie. the commercial licenses.

Ah, but isnt it the commercial license you should be after? You were just making the argument that commercial licensing is used for sinister monopolistic purposes. You contradict yourself.

heavenlyboy34
11-29-2008, 10:04 PM
RTFA?!?!? Naaaw.... who does that anymore? :rolleyes: ;):p:cool::D

I usually do :D

Danke
11-29-2008, 10:14 PM
Ah, but isnt it the commercial license you should be after? You were just making the argument that commercial licensing is used for sinister monopolistic purposes. You contradict yourself.

Where did I say that? The various Constitutions address the commerce clause. When it is applicable. Are you trying to turn this into something about private use of the airways?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Are you trying to turn this into something about private use of the airways?

what the hell are you talking about?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 10:28 PM
Creating a certification process is not protection from fraud, it is protection for the certified against the uncertified.

prove it. I trust you can back up this claim?

Danke
11-29-2008, 10:30 PM
what the hell are you talking about?

I don't know, do you know what the hell you are talking about?

Danke
11-29-2008, 10:31 PM
Ah, but isnt it the commercial license you should be after? You were just making the argument that commercial licensing is used for sinister monopolistic purposes. You contradict yourself.

What the hell are you talking about?

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 10:37 PM
prove it. I trust you can back up this claim?

Have you ever heard/read/seen a government-licensed doctor commit fraud? If you have, then system has failed. Does not having a government-enforced licensure program prevent non-licensed people from performing doctor services?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 10:43 PM
Have you ever heard/read/seen a government-licensed doctor commit fraud? If you have, then system has failed. Does not having a government-enforced licensure program prevent non-licensed people from performing doctor services?

You missed the point completely. Can you back up the claim that licensing is some type of monopolistic conspiracy set up by the industries?

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 10:54 PM
You missed the point completely. Can you back up the claim that licensing is some type of monopolistic conspiracy set up by the industries?

Not at the moment. So let's license-ize everything. Immidiately! :D

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-29-2008, 10:56 PM
Not at the moment.

Then where does that leave your argument?

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 10:56 PM
Not at the moment. So let's license-ize everything. Immidiately! :D

Do you have a license to say that? ;)

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 10:57 PM
Do you have a license to say that? ;)

Do you have a license to ask? :D

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Do you have a license to ask? :D

Now, let me see your license to exist. :p

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:00 PM
Now, let me see your license to exist. :p

What if I do not have one? Do you have a license to do something about it?

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 11:05 PM
What if I do not have one? Do you have a license to do something about it?

No, but I can get one from the federal government! Then we can send you to a concentration camp for not asking the government for permission to do anything, which would require you to get a license to do that in the first place.

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:08 PM
No, but I can get one from the federal government! Then we can send you to a concentration camp for not asking the government for permission to do anything, which would require you to get a license to do that in the first place.

But at least it is for my own good right? I do not think I have license to determine what is or is not good for me.

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 11:12 PM
But at least it is for my own good right? I do not think I have license to determine what is or is not good for me.

Isn't it ironic that the license which gives our federal government the right to exist and operate in a certain way (the Constitution) is being ignored by the same government which imposes strict licensing laws upon its own citizens?

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:17 PM
Isn't it ironic that the license which gives our federal government the right to exist and operate in a certain way (the Constitution) is being ignored by the same government which imposes strict licensing laws upon its own citizens?

Or the argument that if man is inherently evil, he, therefore, must be governed by a government composed of man.

Theocrat
11-29-2008, 11:23 PM
Or the argument that if man is inherently evil, he, therefore, must be governed by a government composed of man.

Yes, and that's why God calls us to choose Godly men who have been regenerated by His Holy Spirit to hold public offices in civil government. But that's getting off the subject of this thread.

nickcoons
11-29-2008, 11:42 PM
See, here is the problem. Its not a question of licensing. Thats the mistake everyone, including Friedman, is making. licensing is simply the end result of education. The only people applying for a medical license are those who have been through medical school. The real dispute is education. When you make the argument that licensing restricts the field, you are really making the claim that education restricts the field.

In the end, the your entire argument comes down to, "licensing restricts the medical field to those trained in medicine"

And here is the problem with your argument. It assumes licensing boards are benevolent and infallible, that they have the foresight to disburse a license to anyone and everyone that will provide a benefit to society in their chosen field. No human can possibly have that foresight. If someone can provide a benefit to society, then they should be allowed to practice and should therefore receive a license, no?


Can you back up the claim that licensing is some type of monopolistic conspiracy set up by the industries?

Oh yes, very easily.

This article (http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html) makes the claim about the health care industry and medical licensing, and cites references. Dr. Mary Ruwart's book, Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html), makes several of these claims as well. Chapter 4 (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap4.html) deals specifically with licensing and is replete with references.

But I think all of this misses the entire point from a consumer standpoint. As a consumer, I should be allowed to pay anyone for services (that is willing to provide those services) and based on criteria that I set for myself, not that a licensing board sets for me. If you disagree, then you are essentially arguing that part of the government's job is to protect me from myself, eliminating the concept of "personal responsibility."

danberkeley
11-29-2008, 11:57 PM
Yes, and that's why God calls us to choose Godly men who have been regenerated by His Holy Spirit to hold public offices in civil government. But that's getting off the subject of this thread.

I just read Exedus 18. I do not see how our current form of government likens to the service of Moses as judge. Moses did not force the people to come to him or his assistants nor to pay him for his service. Nor did he provide licensure.

nickcoons
11-30-2008, 12:24 AM
I just read Exedus 18. I do not see how our current form of government likens to the service of Moses as judge. Moses did not force the people to come to him or his assistants nor to pay him for his service. Nor did he provide licensure.

If we're going to bring religion into the discussion, then we should probably point out that Jesus was a libertarian (http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=13).

danberkeley
11-30-2008, 12:51 AM
If we're going to bring religion into the discussion, then we should probably point out that Jesus was a libertarian (http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=13).

I read the page. Did Jesus ever think about or ask about forcing others to do something?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 12:52 AM
Oh yes, very easily.

This article (http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html) makes the claim about the health care industry and medical licensing, and cites references. Dr. Mary Ruwart's book, Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html), makes several of these claims as well. Chapter 4 (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap4.html) deals specifically with licensing and is replete with references.

All of this, along with your previous arguments on medical care, is making the argument that health care costs are high because of a shortage of supply of doctors as a result of the licensing system. This is simply not true. A shortage of doctors does not play any significant role in the rising price of healthcare.

danberkeley
11-30-2008, 12:55 AM
A shortage of doctors does not play any significant role in the rising price of healthcare.

Got any empirical evidence to back that up?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 01:01 AM
Dr. Mary Ruwart's book, Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html), makes several of these claims as well.

Not to get off subject, but this guy thinks the exclusion of homeopathy as a legal field of medicine was some type of conspiracy by the medical elitists. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks homeopathy has any legitimate scientific standing.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 01:30 AM
Got any empirical evidence to back that up?

1/3 health care cost is administrative costs.

1/3 is spent on unnecessary tests and procedures

20% of the patients use up 80% of the costs. That 20% is patients suffering from chronic diseases like diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease. . .


For the first two, insurance companies and hmos deserve most of the blame. The third one is the fault of unhealthy lifestyles. Nowhere does a licensing induced shortage of doctors play a role.

Working Poor
11-30-2008, 06:27 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks homeopathy has any legitimate scientific standing.

That's because you believe the propaganda put out by organizations like the AMA and FDA and Big Pharma who don't want people to discover how economical and safe homeopathy is. These organization have arrogantly deemed themselves the authority on what is scientific and what is not.

Working Poor
11-30-2008, 07:47 AM
If you believe that medicine has to be complex painful and expensive you will not open your mind to the benefits of health care that is simple painless and cheap.

nickcoons
11-30-2008, 12:15 PM
All of this, along with your previous arguments on medical care, is making the argument that health care costs are high because of a shortage of supply of doctors as a result of the licensing system. This is simply not true. A shortage of doctors does not play any significant role in the rising price of healthcare.

Your claim that all of my previous arguments are to make the point that I believe the one and only factor of high health care costs is a shortage is what's not true. There are many reasons why health care costs are expensive, including an artificial supply restriction, and virtually all of them are government-enacted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HblmoQX5qI8):

- The HMO Act of 1973 created an unnatural link between employment and health care.

- The Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 would ultimately cause the costs of pharmaceuticals to skyrocket.

- Insurance companies must be licensed in every state in which they wish to operate. This prevents consumers from purchasing insurance from whomever they want, limiting their choices (i.e. licensing causing a shortage).

The problem with your statistics on the breakdown of health care costs (which I don't know where they came from or if they're accurate, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now) is that it simply itemizes costs without asking why the costs are the way they are.

For instance, why does health insurance cost so much? The HMO Act allowed employers to deduct the cost of health insurance for its employees from dollar one, but an individual can only deduct health care costs that are greater than 7% of their annual income. If I make $50,000/year, I can't start deducting any of my health care costs until I've spent more than $3,500 for that year. So this created the incentive for employers to provide health care to employees, and for employees to accept it, because there's no way they can get a better deal with the tax disadvantage. The reason this is bad is explained well by Milton Friedman's (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) four ways to spend money. This leads to people using health insurance as prepaid health care, which really increases costs.

Next, there are many regulations requiring that insurance companies provide certain coverage even to those who don't want or need it, which means they need to pay for it. In California, health insurance must cover marital counseling, so it's built in to the price. That's no fun for single people who are shopping for health insurance. And because licensing restricts purchasing health insurance from out of state, Californians don't have the choice of choosing health insurance sans marital counseling from another state.

The list goes on. Suffice it to say, simply breaking the costs down does nothing to address why the costs are the way they are. An artificial supply restriction was responsible for increased costs from the 20s to the 60s, and those items mentioned above are some of the reasons for increased costs from then to the present.

The intent in my original article was not to place the entire blame of health care costs on licensing, but to talk about licensing in more general terms. The article is posted to my campaign site, various blogs, and sent in my newsletter, so it can't be an in-depth discussion because the average person won't read something that takes more than a page or so on their monitor.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 12:34 PM
That's because you believe the propaganda put out by organizations like the AMA and FDA and Big Pharma who don't want people to discover how economical and safe homeopathy is. These organization have arrogantly deemed themselves the authority on what is scientific and what is not.

No, its because unlike you, I didn't flunk out of Chemistry 101.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 12:42 PM
I think you are missing my point. Licensing plays no significant role in the high costs. There are much bigger fish to fry here. I just dont see why you waste your time worrying about an insignificant issue that doesnt extend much further than philosophical intellectualism. Its the privatization of roads argument all over again. Comple waste of time on a diversionary issue that doesnt matter.

nickcoons
11-30-2008, 12:49 PM
I think you are missing my point. Licensing plays no significant role in the high costs. There are much bigger fish to fry here. I just dont see why you waste your time worrying about an insignificant issue that doesnt extend much further than philosophical intellectualism. Its the privatization of roads argument all over again. Comple waste of time on a diversionary issue that doesnt matter.

If the topic was health care, then perhaps. But the topic was licensing.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 01:20 PM
If the topic was health care, then perhaps. But the topic was licensing.

Yes, and I have already show that the conspiracy to restrict licensing for business interests is a bogus argument. Its really comes down to a philosophical argument of, "do people need an education in certain fields before they are allowed to do it?" Licensing is the end result of education. You are really arguing that it shouldnt be required that someone obtain an education before they can practice in fields that put them in a position to do harm to individuals or the public in the event of incompetence.

nickcoons
11-30-2008, 01:52 PM
Yes, and I have already show that the conspiracy to restrict licensing for business interests is a bogus argument.

And I have shown that it is a valid argument.


Its really comes down to a philosophical argument of, "do people need an education in certain fields before they are allowed to do it?" Licensing is the end result of education.

Licensing is the end result of only a certain narrow type of education, to be determined by a licensing board.


You are really arguing that it shouldnt be required that someone obtain an education before they can practice in fields that put them in a position to do harm to individuals or the public in the event of incompetence.

Yes, that is what I'm arguing. It should be up to any individual to pursue their own interests. If it's so obvious that someone without an education shouldn't be practicing medicine, why are you so adamant about not allowing individual consumers to come to that same very obvious conclusion and reject uneducated practitioners on their own?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 02:07 PM
Yes, that is what I'm arguing. It should be up to any individual to pursue their own interests. If it's so obvious that someone without an education shouldn't be practicing medicine, why are you so adamant about not allowing individual consumers to come to that same very obvious conclusion and reject uneducated practitioners on their own?

Because they wont.

The whole thing is an issue of fraud. Licensing is an effective method of combating fraud.

danberkeley
11-30-2008, 02:21 PM
Because they wont.

The whole thing is an issue of fraud. Licensing is an effective method of combating fraud.

Licensing is NOT an effective method of combating fraud. There, I won. :rolleyes:

M House
11-30-2008, 02:31 PM
Actually I always thought the issue of drugs and healthcare could be easily tackled by giving the responsibility to you. You don't need a 12 years of med school ed to run around a hospital throwing antibiotics at people. Going through high school instead of those pseudo educational drug/health classes how about teaching about them in detail science and all. By the time your done you can read an insert, perscribe yourself, and take a detailed exam to get your "universal" drug card. Heck there are schedules and you can make the lower number ones the "addictive and dangerous categories" require a different license and further education. Going to the pharmacists they track what you get under your license, abuse it, you lose it. Have fun paying for another trip to the doctor cuz you couldn't control yourself or handle the responsibility.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-30-2008, 07:08 PM
Actually I always thought the issue of drugs and healthcare could be easily tackled by giving the responsibility to you. You don't need a 12 years of med school ed to run around a hospital throwing antibiotics at people. Going through high school instead of those pseudo educational drug/health classes how about teaching about them in detail science and all. By the time your done you can read an insert, perscribe yourself, and take a detailed exam to get your "universal" drug card. Heck there are schedules and you can make the lower number ones the "addictive and dangerous categories" require a different license and further education. Going to the pharmacists they track what you get under your license, abuse it, you lose it. Have fun paying for another trip to the doctor cuz you couldn't control yourself or handle the responsibility.

. . .

As I said, the argument against licensing stems from an anti-education anti-science background.

Working Poor
11-30-2008, 07:19 PM
no it doesn't

danberkeley
11-30-2008, 10:45 PM
. . .

As I said, the argument against licensing stems from an anti-education anti-science background.

Why arnt mothers required to have licenses to be mothers? Dont mothers need to have sort of motherhood education to know what to do as mothers?

Danke
11-30-2008, 10:51 PM
Why arnt mothers required to have licenses to be mothers? Dont mothers need to have sort of motherhood education to know what to do as mothers?

It's coming. Patience. One thing at a time.

danberkeley
11-30-2008, 11:13 PM
It's coming. Patience. One thing at a time.

... Waiting... :D

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-01-2008, 01:27 AM
Why arnt mothers required to have licenses to be mothers? Dont mothers need to have sort of motherhood education to know what to do as mothers?

mothers and children is a private individual matter. Im talking about business in the public market place.

danberkeley
12-01-2008, 02:16 AM
mothers and children is a private individual matter. Im talking about business in the public market place.

facepalm.

AutoDas
12-01-2008, 05:54 AM
mothers and children is a private individual matter. Im talking about business in the public market place.

Think about the children!!

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-01-2008, 07:04 AM
facepalm.

Yea, I do it every time I read one of your posts.

danberkeley
12-01-2008, 11:02 AM
Yea, I do it every time I read one of your posts.

So should a mother be prohibited from given her child a bandage, because it is medical service?

dannno
12-01-2008, 11:40 AM
mothers and children is a private individual matter. Im talking about business in the public market place.

Medical care isn't a private individual matter??

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-01-2008, 02:14 PM
Medical care isn't a private individual matter??

You are buying your care from a market open to the public.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-01-2008, 02:16 PM
So should a mother be prohibited from given her child a bandage, because it is medical service?

The mother obviously bought the bandage from a licensed pharmacy.

If the mother decided to give the child some type of alternative medicine, like homeopathic fly piss, or something along those lines, and the child was injured or killed, you are likely to see criminal charges brought up.

danberkeley
12-01-2008, 02:27 PM
The mother obviously bought the bandage from a licensed pharmacy.

If the mother decided to give the child some type of alternative medicine, like homeopathic fly piss, or something along those lines, and the child was injured or killed, you are likely to see criminal charges brought up.

Sure. But it was the mother "prescribing" the bandage, not the pharmancy. But even if the child wasnt injured or killed, the mother should go to jail/fined/whatever for practicing unlicensed doctor services?

nickcoons
12-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Because they wont.

That shouldn't be your's or the government's decision to make.


The whole thing is an issue of fraud. Licensing is an effective method of combating fraud.

I see no evidence of that. There are still some industries left in this country that need no license to operate, and I know of nothing that indicates a higher rate of fraud among those industries.

nickcoons
12-01-2008, 07:57 PM
As I said, the argument against licensing stems from an anti-education anti-science background.

You're just wrong.. it stems from a freedom background. If I want to give someone money to provide a service to me, and they want to accept my money in order to provide that service for me, that is no one else's business. To argue otherwise is accepting an infringement on my freedom as well as the providers. That is the background from which this argument is made.

Theocrat
12-01-2008, 08:15 PM
Actually, when it comes to licensing, I would have no problem with a professional guild or society giving out licenses for various services and practices. For example, I think it's legit for a medical guild of professional physicians to hand out licenses to those physicians whom they deem trained and proficient at practicing medicine of some kind. It would put a "stamp of approval" upon those physicians who go out into the medical world and deal with patients, and their license may provide some assurance to the clients of those physicians.

I would also say that it should not be required that all physicians should be licensed if they choose not to get involved with the politics and paperwork of a particular medical guild. If a medical school makes it a requirement for its graduating students to get licensed, then perhaps it could be challenged in a court of law or by some method of legal mediation.

I just don't think the federal government has any right to be involved in the certification of a medical practitioner, especially if the Constitution is to be our guide. It should be left up to private citizens and the free market to determine which physicians give the best quality of care in their field. If a physician kills a patient due to malpractice, then I think that's when the civil government should step in to amend and reconcile damages because of a violation of life and/or property.

nickcoons
12-01-2008, 09:43 PM
Actually, when it comes to licensing, I would have no problem with a professional guild or society giving out licenses for various services and practices. For example, I think it's legit for a medical guild of professional physicians to hand out licenses to those physicians whom they deem trained and proficient at practicing medicine of some kind. It would put a "stamp of approval" upon those physicians who go out into the medical world and deal with patients, and their license may provide some assurance to the clients of those physicians.

I would also say that it should not be required that all physicians should be licensed if they choose not to get involved with the politics and paperwork of a particular medical guild. If a medical school makes it a requirement for its graduating students to get licensed, then perhaps it could be challenged in a court of law or by some method of legal mediation.

I just don't think the federal government has any right to be involved in the certification of a medical practitioner, especially if the Constitution is to be our guide. It should be left up to private citizens and the free market to determine which physicians give the best quality of care in their field. If a physician kills a patient due to malpractice, then I think that's when the civil government should step in to amend and reconcile damages because of a violation of life and/or property.

I agree with the voluntary nature of your proposal. But then at that point we wouldn't generally call it a license, but a certificate. That's what I've always advocated.

heavenlyboy34
12-01-2008, 10:01 PM
I agree with you on this one, Theo. :)


Actually, when it comes to licensing, I would have no problem with a professional guild or society giving out licenses for various services and practices. For example, I think it's legit for a medical guild of professional physicians to hand out licenses to those physicians whom they deem trained and proficient at practicing medicine of some kind. It would put a "stamp of approval" upon those physicians who go out into the medical world and deal with patients, and their license may provide some assurance to the clients of those physicians.

I would also say that it should not be required that all physicians should be licensed if they choose not to get involved with the politics and paperwork of a particular medical guild. If a medical school makes it a requirement for its graduating students to get licensed, then perhaps it could be challenged in a court of law or by some method of legal mediation.

I just don't think the federal government has any right to be involved in the certification of a medical practitioner, especially if the Constitution is to be our guide. It should be left up to private citizens and the free market to determine which physicians give the best quality of care in their field. If a physician kills a patient due to malpractice, then I think that's when the civil government should step in to amend and reconcile damages because of a violation of life and/or property.

The_Orlonater
12-01-2008, 11:07 PM
You have been to a public school too? :D

Well, not all of them are super bad. There are some rather nice public ones around here, there are way more horrrible ones, though. Schools are kind of a touchy subject. In Chicago it's either all private(Catholic) and a little bit of everything, and all public. The private schools can be very expensive here. It's not like I have a huge choice here anyway, I'll play into the system. I am for privatizing every single school.

sratiug
12-01-2008, 11:57 PM
Licensing of doctors has the added detriment of making it illegal for individuals to treat themselves which gives doctors rights others do not have, including the right to restricted drugs. We have given away our right to choose our treatment to the government including the right to eat and drink and breath what we choose. That's why the Titles of Nobility clause is in the constitution, to prevent this kind of bullshit.