Posted on 03/11/2010 4:29:19 AM PST by logician2u
Such a precious moment.
There are no guarantees in life, but licensing, when done right, greatly reduces bad outcomes and reduces confusion in markets involving skilled professionals, making those markets more efficient.
For certain, currently licensed, professions, where the stakes are somewhat lower, I could see voluntary licensing or certification as an option. States could have licensing exams, and those who pass them could bill themselves as licensed (giving them a competitive edge), while others would be required to disclose that the are not licensed or certified. The consumer could then make an informed choice. In other cases licensing should be eliminated altogether.
I am for less regulation, but we can’t get nuts about it.
Hold on there. In what State? In many if not all states, an individual may request a blood count, urinalysis, basic chemistry panel and thyroid testing at their own expense from any lab. I was just in a lab Tuesday and there was sign at the check-in desk proclaiming this.
Furthermore, unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor or a civil offense in most states unless someone is harmed.
You seem to have a real axe to grind against the medical profession.
This thread is a perfect example of how Libertarians (big L) always manage to shoot themselves in the foot.
Florists, hair dressers, taxidermists, carpenters, auto mechanics, etc... Licenses for professions like these are little more than schemes to raise tax revenue for the government (and everyone knows it). Heck, most of the time the only “credentidals” you need to get a license in these professions is a properly filled out form and enough money to cover the fee.
Libertarians could gain a lot of support among the public by arguing this type of licenseing is oppresive and unneeded.
But noooooooooo!!!! They always have to go one step further (or should I say, one step too far) and start arguing we should also eliminate licensing for doctors, nurses, and lawyers.
State licensing for medicine is extraordinarily basic.
For example, anyone with a medical license is technically permitted by the state to do heart surgery. Why don't they? They don't because there are rigorous **private** controls on who can gain access to an operating room where heart surgery takes place.
We have highest standards of medical care in the world because of the private controls placed on physicians by hospitals and their private board certification organizations.
Next week I will have both knees replaced. I have confidence in the surgeon. My family doctor referred me to him. He does most of the knees in our county and surrounding areas. He is privately board certified in his field. I have acquaintances who have had their knees replaced by him. And...The hospital has an excellent reputation. None of my decisions were based upon his having a state license to practice medicine.
I don’t really think the fight about licensing is over doctors. It’s about lawyers, and why it is that the legal profession can get you thrown in jail for giving friendly advice about legal matters.
Practicing medicine without a license is illegal in all States. The laws are generally vague and all inclusive, be careful not to upset your masters : )
Furthermore, unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor or a civil offense in most states unless someone is harmed.
You are hoping for a lenient prosecutor aren't you? Most of the time you would be right, but you might even be breaking the law if you get some cold medicine for your children (practicing medicine without a license is extremely broad). I know a midwife who had to pay a fine and agree to work under a doctors supervision or get thrown in jail.
You seem to have a real axe to grind against the medical profession.
Not at all. I just resent that I have to sit in a doctors office for an hour, pay $100 for an office visit, $40 for a lab test and $30 for a prescription when I am smart enough to take a swab to a lab myself.
Take away the licensed monopoly and watch the prices for medical services fall.
Ditto for urinary tract infections!
Geeze! It's a hundred dollars by the time I get relief!
Honestly, there should be some way that patients should be able to arrange for a urine culture without a doctor's visit and a standing order in place at the pharmacy for the appropriate antibiotic.
That is totally 180˚ degrees off. A degree from Johns Hopkins is worth something, a license is comparatively worthless. I know of a number of licensed Attorneys who bought their degrees from diploma mills, some of whom who effectively bought their degrees from Harvard. They are clueless lawyers, but fun to watch, unless you are a client. : )
For certain, currently licensed, professions, where the stakes are somewhat lower, I could see voluntary licensing or certification as an option. States could have licensing exams, and those who pass them could bill themselves as licensed (giving them a competitive edge), while others would be required to disclose that the are not licensed or certified. The consumer could then make an informed choice. In other cases licensing should be eliminated altogether.
Why not just require a generic business license so that the State can get its cut and let the Customer decide what is important to them? People who are incompetent will get weeded out quickly enough.
Licensing is more or less arbitrary, with the various professions deciding what is kosher and what is not.
As to this:
“Licensing of lawyers and doctors is not overly burdensome on those professionals, and greatly increases the chances of their clients receiving competent service. It saves lives and keeps innocent people from going to prison or losing their property.”
Burdensome on the professional is not the issue, but protection of the profession from outsiders, which is well worth the few hundred dollars per year many pay to be in the guild. This is protection from competition, and also scrutiny, as the guilds are essentially self policing - Especially the lawyers guilds, who not only define their rules, but write the laws governing how others may or may not have recourse when they fail.
There are particular problems with that field which may not be completely surmountable no matter what solution is attempted. E.G. the law seems more inclined to think that suing a lawyer for malpractice is a party’s best recourse when poorly represented, rather than upset a system dependent upon giving deference to decisions after they are made, whether made well or not.
There could be problems with appeals made on the basis of inadequate counsel if the law practitioner were not licensed, but these could be taken care of, perhaps more easily than when counsel is licensed. Certainly the malpractice insurance market could have some impact.
Additionally, if a lawyer has a problem with drugs, for instance, that is privileged information as far as the public is concerned. Discipline is only quasi-public, with much of most complaints in my current state being confidential. Only the truly egregious and un-hidable cases become known, and people who try to expose a lawyer’s track record can be disciplined by the state supreme court themselves.
Having had three such critters in a row fail something as basic as a response to a counterpetition (which was granted due to lack of answer), all of whom were licensed, and all of whom were given material to prepare said response, has jaded me more than a little.
Some professions or organizations are more responsible than others, but determining which is a tough nut to crack.
Now, I would not see a doctor who was not minimally certified to have some expertise in the field for which I need him, but I would also use other opinions and my own judgment in the end.
The thing to remember is that these are minimum qualifications, and that your lawyer and Realtor or other professional may have self interests contrary to your best interests (in some fields this is more likely than others, or the impact higher), any claim to professional responsibility notwithstanding.
While waiting for your answer, I reviewed the licensure board actions for the past year in each of the 6 states in which I am licensed to practice medicine. I did not identify a single action for the unlicensed practice of medicine. In most states, the Board of Medical Licensure through the State Attorney General’s office is the only agency permitted by law to enforce laws regarding the practice of medicine within the state.
In one state with which I am familiar, an over zealous prosecutor was smacked down by the State Attorney General’s office for over stepping his authority about 15 years ago. That was in Florida, but I don’t have a link.
I am acquainted with Medical Licensure board members in 4 states. The one who responded to my email this afternoon couldn’t recall a single case involving unlicensed practice in her 10 years on the board.
So it is fine for me to go down to the drug store and pick up some gamma globulin, xylocaine, and praxis for my trip down to Guatemala? I normally pick the stuff up in Mexico, it would be more convenient here, but it is a lot cheaper in Mexico.
Oops you're right. I must be losing my touch : (
Once again you aren’t paying attention. NO “profession” needs to have government “approval” to exist and no practitioner thereof needs some piece of government wastepaper to tell him he’s allowed to do that thing. If you read up on the history of this nation, you’ll learn that such “permissions” were not considered necessary by the Founders and for good reason. Good practitioners thrived; bad ones were driven out by the marketplace. Then BOGUS practitioners got the government to limit entry and grandfather in the bad seeds and stifle competition. These lawyers then became politicians and judges and gave us what we have today.
In a nutshell, anyone who favors any form of licensing is, in my never to be humble opinion, a statist idiot studying to become a marxist cretin. Because priorly, anyone who wanted to DID hang out a shingle and practiced law or medicine. Mostly after reading law and clerking for someone, but always with more common sense than today’s crew, thanks to the law, a self-serving condition, or studying medicine either for a doctor or at a medical school, when they were available. And we survived and thrived. So there goes your theory. Sorry. (not)
These shysters take care of their own, there is no disputing. What looks like criminal conduct to an outsider can be downgraded to a verbal reprimand within the professional organization.
Something else to consider, and this is a direct result of the close-knit, us-versus-them relationships that exist within the legal community, is the matter of judge retention. You almost never see lawyers' names on letters asking that a particular judge be removed in the next election, no matter how incompetent or biased the judge may be, no matter how often the judge's decisions were overruled on appeal, no matter how uncivilly the judge conducts his courtroom or threatens attorneys coming before him with contempt.
Of course, we can easily understand their reasoning. Most attorneys aspire to be judges themselves someday. Gotta protect the status quo that they've become a part of.
That goes without saying, but as long as you're saying it . .
Have you read the book, Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner? They devote a chapter to realtors, of the Chicago variety, who may or may not be representative. By compiling selling price statistics they conclude that a realtor's motivation is to collect that commission as quickly as they can when it's another person's home but to hold on for a higher offering price when selling their own.
This could be another whole hour for Stossel, if he needs more material.
It’s the revenue...
The pharmacist is going to refuse to dispense those legend drugs without a prescription. You won’t be charged or arrested for trying to obtain them. OTOH, if you write a prescription in a physician’s name and try to fill them, you’ll probably be arrested for forgery, not unlicensed practice.
Governments seldom if ever "make money" by licensing professions. The costs associated with administering a licensure program normally eat up all of the income, usually considerably more.
In my somewhat limited experience, many professional licensure exams primarily ensure that the person being licensed understands the government regulations, not that they know how to do a better job at their profession.
Licensure expands government power, that's its only real rationale. I've never seen any evidence that states with licensure of the more obscure professions actually have fewer problems with that profession than those who don't have licensure.
How is “legal advice” any different from any other speech?
I’ll exercise my freedom of speech right now to give legal advice to all of you to obey the laws that makes murder and rape and robbery illegal.
How is it different is I accept money (or not) for exercising my freedom of speech?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.