3 ms·
If I'm reading you right, you're worried about e.g. some crackpot calling himself a doctor who rubs moonstones on an infection to make the evil spirits go away.
by MichaelBurge 10y ago
If I'm reading you right, you're worried about e.g. some crackpot calling himself a doctor who rubs moonstones on an infection to make the evil spirits go away. An unfortunate consequence of "anyone can start a medical practice" is that the crackpot would be allowed to operate, but the negative aspects could be mitigated by:
* Somebody starting a "Yelp for doctors"
* The government could give some approval stamp to doctors using all the existing restrictions, and you could always ask a doctor "Are you XYZ-approved?" It would be a very serious crime for a moonstone-carrying crackpot to lie about his governmental approval, and his status could be verified on a government website. People who solely use government-approved doctors would still benefit, since licensed doctors would still be competing against unlicensed doctors, so there'd be a limit to how much the government policy could distort the market.
* People who repair your sidewalk or furnace often advertise "licensed, bonded, and insured". A furnace can burn your house down, which seems a similar risk to medical malpractice. You could ask your doctor if he's licensed by the government, has put his personal capital into a bond, and is insured.
- maxerickson 10y agoI'm not terribly worried about literal crackpots. I'm skeptical that "Yelp for doctors" will in practice be more efficient than up front regulation about who can provide certain services. I certainly think there are impediments that should be removed, just not all of them.
- flyingfences 10y agoYou're skeptical it is possible for something to be more efficient than the US Government?