4 ms·

>>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, th

>>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.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. We already have provisions for when someone cannot make decisions for themselves, like guardianship. We do not need to subject the entire population to guardianship-like subordination. >>You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. It is a monopoly: the licensure rules have a monopoly over all providers. Your argument seems to be that people cannot choose for themselves, so it's better we impose this monopoly on them. But if they can't choose an effective delegate in the marketplace, who says they can choose an effective politician to vote for in an election, who will then appoint the regulator that vets their market options? It's better to go with a decentralized approach, where each individual is free to choose their own delegate, rather than a centralized one where the entire population votes every four years for one delegate that gets the power to vote for every one, whether they consent or not. >>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', I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate for continuing to limit people's right to freely contract and purchase the goods/services they want.

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.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. We already have provisions for when someone cannot make decisions for themselves, like guardianship. We do not need to subject the entire population to guardianship-like subordination. >>You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. It is a monopoly: the licensure rules have a monopoly over all providers. Your argument seems to be that people cannot choose for themselves, so it's better we impose this monopoly on them. But if they can't choose an effective delegate in the marketplace, who says they can choose an effective politician to vote for in an election, who will then appoint the regulator that vets their market options? It's better to go with a decentralized approach, where each individual is free to choose their own delegate, rather than a centralized one where the entire population votes every four years for one delegate that gets the power to vote for every one, whether they consent or not. >>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', I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate for continuing to limit people's right to freely contract and purchase the goods/services they want.