Bible-beater pilots

L,

We agree on that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jules Beaudoin wrote:

I never realized there were so many religion nuts in aviation. Amazing!

I never realized there were so many atheist nuts in aviation. Amazing!

Brian Burger wrote:

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?

In fact, why bother to get insurance at all? Just pick up a fake insurance
certificate at the nearest printer and hang it on your wall to reassure the
s^Hu^Hc^Hk^He^Hr^Hs^h patients. There's no regulation that requires it to be
*real*, is there?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

In article .ca, Brian Burger
writes:


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.


THey don't have to gain anything, it is a byproduct of their existing business
interests.

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."

Diplomas are issued by dental schools, not licensing boards. The insurance
companies are perfectly capable of determining which schools produce dentists
who do not generateexcessive malpractice claims.

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.


YOu can get lower rates by having a clean record, but you can also lower rates
by getting advanced training.

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?


Requiring they have a diploma from a reputable school.

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?


The State licensing boards only test a dentist once, when he applies for the
license, and never again unless he moves to a state which does not practice
reciprocity.

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.


Actually the AMA and ADA are more about protecting their members interests than
the publics. Which is how it should be.


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.


And again, the insurance companies' standards are higher than the governments
anyway in aviation just as in health care.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article k.net, L Smith
writes:


So far, all I've seen from your argument is a claim that I don't need
to be an expert
in dentistry to tell if you're competent. However, I now need to become
an insurance
expert in order to determine whether or not the insurance you _claim_ to
have has
any validity.

Do you know my dental license is not forged? Do you know what standards are
required for maintaining a license?

The insurance companies have a financial interest in insuring dentists who will
not generate malpractice claims. The state licensing board has a financial
interest only in there being a state licensing board again next year. Whose
interests are most in parallel with yours?

That is not to say that state licensing boards are evil, but they really don't
serve a purpose that the insurance industry cannot fulfill just as well, at
lower cost.

Why do you assume the consumer is less able to make his own choices in health
care and legal services providers than he is for auto repair?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes:

Wdtabor wrote:

Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has a
chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one). Since
I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that opportunity.
That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.


Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough votes
that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer
Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run
candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no chance
of changing the outcome.

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The
result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict
Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example
of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "Ron Natalie"
writes:


So, what goood does the license do that the private sector has not already
done
better?

Will they issue you insurance without you showing a license? If not, then
the
insurance company is relying (partially) on a government function to weed out
some of the undesirables.

I would think educational credentials, like a DDS or DMD degree from a
reputable dental school would be a good starting point. Certainly better than a
license from the state.

But you still haven't made a case that the insurance industry is providing
any
"better" service to anybody other than you.



For a good example of how this could provide better service, look under your
toaster. You will see the UL acceptance number. Underwriters Laboratory is
supported by the product liability insurance business and by self insured
manufacturers and sets generally accepted safety standards with no help from
the government.

Licensing of professionals provides very little in the way of safety, the real
purpose of licensing is collusion with government for restraint of trade.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

For a good example of how this could provide better service, look under your
toaster. You will see the UL acceptance number. Underwriters Laboratory is
supported by the product liability insurance business and by self insured
manufacturers and sets generally accepted safety standards with no help from
the government.


But every toaster (in a line) is the same. Not every patient is. Leaving it
to the insurance companies or some other soulless entities may induce doctors
and dentists to simply not take difficult cases, or cases where the outcome is
less than certain. But those are the cases where you most need medical
expertise. I suspect that a lot of the "wellness" stuff going on has to do
with the fact that the doctor can make just as much money seeing well patients
as sick ones, and there is less chance of copmlications and (thus)
"consequences".

There are unintended consequences to each method (licensing, insuance,
marketplace) of regulation. It is simplistic to think that any one is "the
answer"

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes:

Brian Burger wrote:

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?

In fact, why bother to get insurance at all? Just pick up a fake insurance
certificate at the nearest printer and hang it on your wall to reassure the
s^Hu^Hc^Hk^He^Hr^Hs^h patients. There's no regulation that requires it to be
*real*, is there?


Umm, I buy that insurance so that if I make a mistake I do not lose my home,
business and savings.

Also, most dental insurance companies require that you be insured to do
business with them, and they DO check your claimed coverage with the insurer.
The point being that I need the insurance to do business anyway.

Another problem solved by the private sector without any need for the boot of
government on our necks.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Brian Burger wrote:
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.

Actually, most organizations have their roots in the Guild system of
the Middle Ages. And the sole purpose of the Guilds were to protect
their members from unemployment. Not a member of the Guild? Sorry,
you can't [fill in the blank].