SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: skinowski who wrote (543640)10/18/2013 12:39:25 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793882
 
I think it's funny that the author of the article used Friedman to support his demand for more licensing... :)

You and I can "talk the talk" about free enterprise here, but when it's time to "walk the walk" every major medical job requires a license. I see not "big bucks" or "pressure groups" here, what I see is that NP's want to change the licensing that they have, and have been able to get bills to that effect in most legislatures. As long as the AMA continues to restrict the supply of new MD's, and more people want medical care, it's inevitable, IMO.

In a free enterprise situation, I would be able to choose who I wanted to see for my medical problems. "Buyer beware."

I know, I know. If we didn't have licensing, we would have quacks practicing medicine. That never happens now, does it?

In fact, the present system allows quacks to continue to practice even when they are exposed. The bureaucracy is very bad at eliminating them.

In my constant reading of medical news, one of the things Doctors REALLY don't like these days is having their practice talked about on line. A lot of the bad ones are getting exposed and they want censorship of the comments. Reading these comments are much superior to seeing if the Doc has a medical license. You can check out a Doc in your area now just like you check out any other service. The Doc's don't like it? Tough Toenails!