On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wdtabor wrote:

In article ,
(Teacherjh) writes:



Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with
insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.


If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

Does consumer/public protection always equal "accomodating the stupid",
though?

Actually, what I wonder is what's in it for the *insurance companies* in
this regulation-by-insurance scheme. They don't seem to gain anything by
it except additional trouble.

Let's stick with dentists for a bit, seeing as we got their insurance
involved earlier in the thread. Currently, AFAIK, if you apply for dental
malpractice insurance, and can't produce a gov't approved Dr of Dentistry
certificate, the company is going to say, "Talk to us after you graduate,
kid."

After all, the certificate shows at least basic competence in dentistry. I
bet that most new dentists pay nearly the same insurance rates, and that
those later go up/down depending on how much you use your insurance to
protect yourself.

Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
competent now?

The company now has to somehow test the competence of everyone who applies
to get their dental practice covered, or risk going broke paying out
malpractice claims. This means additional expense & complication for the
insurance company. Why would any sane, minding-the-bottom-line company
WANT this libertarian ideal to take root?

What if a dentist wants to change insurance companies? Sooner or later
you'd wind up back at a universally accepted standard of training, and
recognition of that with... wait for it... certificates/degrees etc in
dentistry.

Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
para-medicals organize in their sectors.

Ultimately, I think Libertarianism is based on economic & sociological
theories that are just as flawed as those in Marxism...

To drag this back on topic (sort of...) swap "pilot" or "aircraft
designer" for "dentist" in my example above.

Brian.