Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!psuvax1!berman From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Credentials, State vs. private Message-ID: <1815@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 12:19:49 EDT Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1815 Posted: Tue Sep 24 12:19:49 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:25:05 EDT References: <4297@alice.UUCP> <1565@umcp-cs.UUCP> <126@l5.uucp> <760@cybvax0.UUCP> <10431@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ. Lines: 47 > >Remove the restrictions on medical practice, and you open up a huge can > >of worms of this sort. People will choose the quack who makes them feel > >best about their medical service; because he tells them "yes, take that > >drug", because he makes outrageous claims for their health if they follow > >his advice, because he tells them their aura gets better and better every > >time they visit. And how could anyone sue for malpractice, without some > >implicit standard of medical practice? "You didn't diagnose that cancer!" > >"That wasn't a cancer, it was an evil spirit, and the patients will wasn't > >strong enough. I can't cure everybody." > > Good point. But it is their business. And, as for malpractice suits, I don't > see the problem. Welders aren't certified, but you can certainly sue for a > faulty weld. Mike, why don't you get over this nasty itch you have to run > other people's lives? > > -- Rick. It not as simle as it sounds. First, I doubt that you may sue a welder. It makes sence to sue a construction company. If you hire a construction company, then you are a developer with suficient recources to perform checks on financial standing, performance history and bussiness insurance of the construction companies available. An individual customer does not have the recources to do it. The truth is that the medical credencials ARE can of worms even now, but most of the existing worms would be alive and well under "free market" system, plus many new would appear. If the free-market of medical services would work as the market for car repair is doing it now, I say "No, thanks". If it would work as it is doing now, all the abuses would remain in place, with less possibility for recourse. Do not think that you would be let free to run your life as you see it fit. Insurance companies, professional associations and legislators would do it for you anyway. Insurence companies need credential for service providers anyway. The abuses here are of the following nature: dominant professional organizations try to eliminate minor providers, like midwifes and chiropractors. The lobbying and politics occur in the "free market" as frequently as in the legislatures. In the free-market the dominant regulatory role would be placed in the legal system, the tort law regulations. You would not change that. In fact, the American health care system is one of the least regulated and most expensive in the world. Complete deregulation would: a. create even more expensive "legimitate medicine"; b. create a variety of less expensive substandard providers for the poor, with great possibilities for quacks; c. create a dangerous jungle in the market of medicines. Piotr