> He is a guy with some real skin in the game. Your mechanic has zero skin in the car safety game. He has nothing to gain or lose from giving accurate safety

> He is a guy with some real skin in the game. Your mechanic has zero skin in the car safety game. He has nothing to gain or lose from giving accurate safety advice. This means he's not financially incentivized to push certain cars but also means he's not incentivized to gather or provide accurate or useful data. I'm amazed that you're so distrustful of the government that you prefer tarot reading from your mechanic over the recommendations from the agency that literally crashes thousands of cars to gather data on how safe they are. This isn't healthy skepticism. This is blind hate. > People refer to yelp, friends and other known patients before visiting a doctor. People generally have no way of knowing the quality of a doctor. They recommend primarily based on whether they like the doctor on a personal level. Which is fine because the medical industry is structured to largely keep incompetent doctors out. > In the absence of government's heavy handed approach of medical regulation the market can perhaps develop a FICO like score for doctors. I'm just kind of at a loss here. FICO was such a screwed up system that the government had to step in and regulate it because people were unable to get loans because of bad data and they had no way to find out or fix it. This is hardly a good model for controlling quality in general. When industries form bodies to self-regulate in the absence of government involvement, it generally doesn't help consumers. It helps the industry. It's also typically called collusion because it's such a harmful practice.