5 ms·

>>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversatio

>>Ok, can you show me the lobbying that swayed their opinion on this topic then? I only deduce it happens. I mean the lobbying happens in ordinary conversations like these, where people with a vested interest in gatekeeping argue it's in the public interest. I'm deducing it happens based simply on the incentives that exist for concentrated interests, in the form of insiders, to engage in it. It also manifests as major political representatives legitimizing said licensure, and rationalizing the principle behind it to the public, in exchange for support from insiders within the regulated industry. >>If they are just gullible like you claim, then do you think these incapable people will have the capacity to choose well after removing license requirements for providers? Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life. >>That would be nice in many ways, but I can see a downside too. Once someone is found to be incompetent, fraudulent, and harmful, how would they be barred from the profession to prevent the issue from happening to others? I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevert courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct. The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be. That is what the principles of a free society demand.

giantg2 5y ago
"I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today. The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. "Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life." It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. The important part is "their level of knowledge". Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Most people accept it as truth and do not care to do any research on credible sites like PubMed.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer. >>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is. >>It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. Only 8% of healthcare spending is on emergency services, which can and should have government involvement to avoid abuse of geography-based monopoly by service providers. But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options. >>Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer." You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. "But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options." Just because it's non-emergency does not mean the person is capable if choosing. You have people who are mentally ill and incapacitated who are treated in settings other than the ER. The highest spending happens at the end of life stage. "I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is." Do you actually have more details for how that framework would work? So far all I'm hearing is that we should nor have licenses for medical professionals. How does that work with medical professionals powers to suspend drivers licenses, commit people, help in emergencies (good samaritan laws), etc. How does this affect malpractice insurance and torts, especially if you're saying that any incompetence can simply be stated by the provider to avoid court intervention? How would this system work in relation to controlled substances and expensive equiptment maintenance/procurement? How are the safety programs legally enforceable or logically possible without training? We already see that VEARS has terrible quality data. There are many adverse events that go unreported, especially by the lower trained PAs/NPs (my experiences). "Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market." You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. There are numerous providers competing with each other. There's simply a training/licensure requirement. How are reputable experts foing to be any different than the current system? My guess is that they will create their own license system and force people through that too. Insurances, which cover the vast majority, will still require licenses to ensure that people aren't getting care that will be ineffective and cost them even more. This includes stuff like Medicare and Medicaid that the government controls. Do you have a thesis paper or something that we can see? We really need more information about what exactly you are proposing beyond 'remove licenses, free market will work', how that will affect the numerous aspects of the system as well as it's integration with other systems, and what research there is to support it.

giantg2 5y ago

"I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today. The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. "Yes, because people do far more research for personal consumer choices, where their level of knowledge has a substantial personal impact, than for political positions where their level of knowledge has a minimal impact, or minimal likelihood of impact, on their personal life." It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. The important part is "their level of knowledge". Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Most people accept it as truth and do not care to do any research on credible sites like PubMed.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer. >>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is. >>It may have a more direct impact, but that does not mean they will have better outcomes. For one, you will be taken to the nearest hospital in an emergency - you have no choice. Only 8% of healthcare spending is on emergency services, which can and should have government involvement to avoid abuse of geography-based monopoly by service providers. But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options. >>Most people do not possess the level of knowledge to evaluate a medical professional and the information given to them by that medical professional. Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer." You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. "But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options." Just because it's non-emergency does not mean the person is capable if choosing. You have people who are mentally ill and incapacitated who are treated in settings other than the ER. The highest spending happens at the end of life stage. "I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is." Do you actually have more details for how that framework would work? So far all I'm hearing is that we should nor have licenses for medical professionals. How does that work with medical professionals powers to suspend drivers licenses, commit people, help in emergencies (good samaritan laws), etc. How does this affect malpractice insurance and torts, especially if you're saying that any incompetence can simply be stated by the provider to avoid court intervention? How would this system work in relation to controlled substances and expensive equiptment maintenance/procurement? How are the safety programs legally enforceable or logically possible without training? We already see that VEARS has terrible quality data. There are many adverse events that go unreported, especially by the lower trained PAs/NPs (my experiences). "Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market." You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. There are numerous providers competing with each other. There's simply a training/licensure requirement. How are reputable experts foing to be any different than the current system? My guess is that they will create their own license system and force people through that too. Insurances, which cover the vast majority, will still require licenses to ensure that people aren't getting care that will be ineffective and cost them even more. This includes stuff like Medicare and Medicaid that the government controls. Do you have a thesis paper or something that we can see? We really need more information about what exactly you are proposing beyond 'remove licenses, free market will work', how that will affect the numerous aspects of the system as well as it's integration with other systems, and what research there is to support it.