Abolish Licensing in Healthcare (and every other field for that matter)

[CaptainAmerica]

I would like to know that my medical professional is qualified and trained to perform his job. As for "cutting out the middle man" I would be concerned that doctors making money off prescriptions themselves would encourage them to write even more prescriptions- needed or not. Competition among pharmacies is good though.

Yes because the AMA and the government for that matter approve that? lol

[tttppp]

What do you consider "qualified" which your doctors lack?

For one, the ability to cure something, which not doctor has. I've also been to plenty of doctors who were too lazy to even try to diagnose my problems. There are also plenty of doctors too stupid to figure anything out. For example, when I went to doctors, I had to do all the research myself, diagnose the problem myself, then recommend a medication to the doctor. Additionally, I had to keep my problem simple. If I stated multiple symptoms to my doctor, he'd get confused and wouldn't be able to do anything for me. I don't consider someone with a complete lack of intelligence to be qualified.

[furface]

For one, the ability to cure something, which not doctor has. I've also been to plenty of doctors who were too lazy to even try to diagnose my problems. There are also plenty of doctors too stupid to figure anything out. For example, when I went to doctors, I had to do all the research myself, diagnose the problem myself, then recommend a medication to the doctor. Additionally, I had to keep my problem simple. If I stated multiple symptoms to my doctor, he'd get confused and wouldn't be able to do anything for me. I don't consider someone with a complete lack of intelligence to be qualified.

One of the other benefits of not having monopolies is that fields tend to progress more rapidly without them. An average guy with an internet connection could probably practice diagnostic medicine better than most MDs. The field of diagnostic medicine has not kept up with technology.

[tttppp]

One of the other benefits of not having monopolies is that fields tend to progress more rapidly without them. An average guy with an internet connection could probably practice diagnostic medicine better than most MDs. The field of diagnostic medicine has not kept up with technology.

I speak from experience. I know I can diagnose problems better than most MDs.

[Zippyjuan]

For one, the ability to cure something, which not doctor has. I've also been to plenty of doctors who were too lazy to even try to diagnose my problems. There are also plenty of doctors too stupid to figure anything out. For example, when I went to doctors, I had to do all the research myself, diagnose the problem myself, then recommend a medication to the doctor. Additionally, I had to keep my problem simple. If I stated multiple symptoms to my doctor, he'd get confused and wouldn't be able to do anything for me. I don't consider someone with a complete lack of intelligence to be qualified.

Sorry you have not found a doctor which is capable of curing anything and they are all lazy and stupid. Let's get rid of any requirements they know anything and that will improve their quality? Or encourage even more less qualified people to enter the field?

[Sam I am]

If you don't have some sort of certification system, How would you know whether or not the particular doctor you're looking into is competant?

[tttppp]

Sorry you have not found a doctor which is capable of curing anything and they are all lazy and stupid. Let's get rid of any requirements they know anything and that will improve their quality? Or encourage even more less qualified people to enter the field?

I'm ok with licenses that improve the quality of the doctors, but I'm not ok with licenses that exist solely for the purpose of creating barriers to entry. My point I made earlier is that whatever they are doing now isn't working. They either need to fix the system, or scrap it completely.

One thing that may work better is for all doctors to be registered on a system and patients be allowed to rate them. If patients could easily look up a doctors rating from patients, that could dramatically improve competition and create better service and prices. Maybe they have something like that already, but I'm not aware of anything thats mainstream yet.

[The Free Hornet]

Even back in 1975 the AMA was limiting the supply of Doctors. Decades later, hundreds of libtards on the Huffington Post will talk about "free market failure" and the need for universal care:

Profession and Monopoly, a book published in 1975, is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. Restrictions against advertising that is not false or deceptive were dropped from the AMA Code of Medical Ethics in 1980 (AMA Ethical Policy E-5.02). The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#Criticisms

I'll say this, I am all for and 100% down with bankrupting every mother-fucking doctor and every mother-fucking insurance company. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. Fuck 'em. I would support 1000% (one thousand) so-called universal care single-payer health care before mandating a single dollar of my money to a private company. Yes, I think universal health care would suck especially if you need extraordinary care (accident, cancer). Of course, one reason lots of people support universal health care is because they don't need extraordinary care. They want mediocre care at the lowest cost and are perfectly happy clipping off the ends of the health care market (infants and elderly) and any edge cases needing extreme amounts.

I'll add that these same people would be much better off never buying insurance and always self-financing or paying cash. Much like public schooling, the government option is intended to drive up costs and benefit unions/guilds/civil servants while delivering a crap product to the public. How many towering office buildings have our insurance requirements built? I couldn't count them. I do know the government managed care has led to the loss of hospitals and ER rooms across the nation. Health insurance is worthless if there is no doctor to sew your face back on.

[pcgame]

..

[Zippyjuan]

I'm ok with licenses that improve the quality of the doctors, but I'm not ok with licenses that exist solely for the purpose of creating barriers to entry. My point I made earlier is that whatever they are doing now isn't working. They either need to fix the system, or scrap it completely.

One thing that may work better is for all doctors to be registered on a system and patients be allowed to rate them. If patients could easily look up a doctors rating from patients, that could dramatically improve competition and create better service and prices. Maybe they have something like that already, but I'm not aware of anything thats mainstream yet.

A good idea- and yes, there are such things. http://www.healthgrades.com/ for example. Or http://www.vitals.com/ Just a couple of the first ones popping up on Google. Like most review sites, the more likely to share info are those who encountered problems than those satisfied.