America needs a free market healthcare system

No, it's not an artificial ceiling created by the AMA. The limited number of medical schools is the result of an AMA imposed ceiling. THe limited number of residency programs is the result of economic decisions by the hospitals.

If you want to argue that eliminating licensure standards for physicians is an acceptable reason to defund residency programs, well I wish you luck with that shitshow of an argument.

Yes, they did. The AMA created what's effectively a union of physicians in 1847 that presided over the licensing standards and uniformity for medical education. The limit to the number of people that can practice under the same scope of care as MDs is the AMA.

If that constraint didn't exist then you wouldn't need hospitals to set up training programs to train MD level clinicians to the arbitrary standard of licensing established by the AMA. You would have several vouching organizations and training programs, whose reputation, and frankly existence is upheld by the caliber of clinician they sign off on to practice. That exists in the same way that someone's degree from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or [Insert Ivy League] carries more weight than from DeVry university. The weight those degrees carry over DeVry's isn't demanded. Its earned, both by the student attending and the institution granting the degree.
 
Last edited:
ITT we learn that the real problem with the healthcare system is doctors needing to be licensed.

If anyone could call themselves a doctor, we wouldn't have a shortage of doctors. The poor could afford these 'doctors' and everyone would have access to healthcare. Once one of these 'doctors' killed enough people to get a enough 1 star yelp reviews the market would put them out of business. But don't worry, the families could sue them for damages (jokes... liability caps would be in place to stop massive payouts - can't have pesky accountability distort the market).
 
Yes, they did. The AMA created what's effectively a union of physicians in 1847 that presided over the licensing standards and uniformity for medical education. The limit to the number of people that can practice under the same scope of care as MDs is the AMA.

If that constraint didn't exist then you wouldn't need hospitals to set up training programs to train MD level clinicians to the arbitrary standard of licensing established by the AMA. You would have several vouching organizations and training programs, whose reputation, and frankly existence is upheld by the caliber of clinician they sign off on to practice. That exists in the same way that someone's degree from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or [Insert Ivy League] carries more weight than from DeVry university.
Those goddamn licensing standards are tearing us apart! The standardization of medical practice is an abomination of human endeavor!
 
If anyone could call themselves a doctor, we wouldn't have a shortage of doctors. The poor could afford these 'doctors' and everyone would have access to healthcare. Once one of these 'doctors' killed enough people to get a enough 1 star yelp reviews the market would put them out of business. But don't worry, the families could sue them for damages (jokes... liability caps would be in place to stop massive payouts - can't have pesky accountability distort the market).

Those goddamn licensing standards are tearing us apart! The standardization of medical practice is an abomination of human endeavor!

This is just a function of whether you think the quality that you see in your products is a result of government or the producer of the product you're buying. In which case, you have to ask who stands to lose more if you decide not to buy it, Government or the Business?
 
This is just a function of whether you think the quality that you see in your products is a result of government or the producer of the product you're buying. In which case, you have to ask who stands to lose more if you decide not to buy it, Government or the Business?
Brb heading down south to see a border quack about a kidney issue.
 
Brb heading down south to see a border quack about a kidney issue.

If he's a quack and he's shady, would you trust him with your life and your health? I suppose everyone else would though right? I always knew you were the wise overlord everyone was looking to for all their decision making.
 
If he's a quack and he's shady, would you trust him with your life and your health? I suppose everyone else would though right? I always knew you were the wise overlord everyone was looking to for all their decision making.
Well obviously
 
This is just a function of whether you think the quality that you see in your products is a result of government or the producer of the product you're buying. In which case, you have to ask who stands to lose more if you decide not to buy it, Government or the Business?

I believe a number of non obvious to the consumer quality standards are met are due to Govt regulation. Child Labour laws - Govt regulation. Longer storage life apples - private market incentive. Limited antibiotic usage in animals - Govt regulation. Cool new drones - private market incentive. No lead paint in kids toys - Govt regulation.

I don't shut my eyes to how great the market can be, it's a phenomenally powerful force. I also (unlike you) don't shut my eyes to it's failures, and the place regulation and Govt intervention has to correct that.
 
I believe a number of non obvious to the consumer quality standards are met are due to Govt regulation. Child Labour laws - Govt regulation.

Let's start with the first one you listed. The market provided (with increases in productivity) for us to be able to allow children not to work. That's demonstrable, because the government cannot legislate into existence a higher standard of living.

And the axiom, I'll add to this is the irony about having my eyes closed, when the hallmark of someone that understands economics is their ability to appreciate the unseen. In your case, you're quick to point out a handful of things the government contributed to, but ignore their thousands of failures, while also still ignoring the unseen opportunities for regulation or how those problems would have been addressed in the market absent the influence of a monopoly on regulation.
 
Last edited:
Let's start with the first one you listed. The market provided (with increases in productivity) for us to be able to allow children not to work. That's demonstrable, because the government cannot legislate into existence a higher standard of living.

Sure, and you can show how child labour (mostly) ended not when regulation was passed, but prior to that as productivity grew right? Just like the 8 hour day came about not by regulation, but when producers had enough money they allowed their workers to work less.

You can show how animal welfare standards across the industry are unnecessary because all large scale operations treat their animals well above what is allowed?
 
Sure, and you can show how child labour (mostly) ended not when regulation was passed, but prior to that as productivity grew right? Just like the 8 hour day came about not by regulation, but when producers had enough money they allowed their workers to work less.

You can show how animal welfare standards across the industry are unnecessary because all large scale operations treat their animals well above what is allowed?

Yes, because our current productivity standards all allow for them. Establish any of these in a place like Nigeria. Are they going to improve their lives or are you just going to starve out the population (assuming you could actually enforce it)?
 
Yes, because our current productivity standards all allow for them. Establish any of these in a place like Nigeria. Are they going to improve their lives or are you just going to starve out the population (assuming you could actually enforce it)?

Right, so at best, you can argue that economic growth allows some of these quality increases, but it doesn't cause them. Producers would be happy going along at lower costs rather than increasing standards if regulation didn't force the issue.
 
Right, so at best, you can argue that economic growth allows some of these quality increases, but it doesn't cause them. Producers would be happy going along at lower costs rather than increasing standards if regulation didn't force the issue.

Well no, the pressure* to increase standards is the same pressure* that forces businesses to pay the market wage to workers in accordance to their value marginal product. Places like Google attract the best talent, in part because its a really enjoyable place to be employed with a lots of ancillary benefits to work there. Better working conditions attract better workers.

If you're going to have people work in a shithole (did I cross a line there?) then you had better be making up for that in other areas of compensation.
 
Back
Top