12YearOldKid said:
She didn't say anything about "free" trade. You started this silly little tirade all on your own.
When I ask if "you" really want free trade, I'm including more than just a specific person. I am speaking more broadly to the people on this board. Lots of people run around on here as though they're robber barons who "deserve" certain economic rewards. Maybe they do. But when the public grants a benefit to others, there are concomitant responsibilities. I don't see anyone mentioning those. That's a little troubling.
First of all, there is plenty of competition within the field of dentistry.
But there is
less than there would be if the government didn't protect the industry with licensing.
Look at the amount of money spent on dental advertising; this is because in most populated areas dentists are fighting tooth and nail to attract new patients.
And they'd have to fight harder if they didn't have a license requirement.
Second, people are getting plenty in return for allowing dentistry to be a licensed profession. Dental work is relatively benign BECAUSE it is done by trained professionals. We have the potential to inflict serious damage on our patients.
Right. But people are also denied the opportunity to take more risk to save themselves money.
If we just opened up the profession and did away with DEA licensure it would be absolute mayhem. All kinds of bad things would start happening in dental chairs - infections, drug reactions, surgical mishaps, etc... It would not be a pretty picture.
I doubt that. Private licensing and accrediting programs would pop-up. TV news stations would warn people that they are taking a risk by going to an unaccredited/unlicensed dentist. I do agree that more bad things would happen. The question is whether those bad things would outweigh increased access to dental care.
Are you suggesting that dentistry is overpriced?
Relative to a free market, yes, dentistry is overpriced. That same conclusion applies to the medical field, the legal field, and any other field in which the government protects the industry but doesn't impose caps on payment. That's not a moral judgment or anything like that. It's simple economic truth.
And of course this is because dentists earn too much?
It's a simple result of supply restriction.
Dentistry is a bargain. People who say they can't afford dentistry now still couldn't afford dentistry if the dentist volunteered to take a 50% paycut.
A reduction in cost would lead to more "units of dentistry" being sold. You could ask how many more would be sold, but there's no question that more would be sold.
$200 vs $170. Not much difference is there?
It's a 15% price reduction. That's meaningful at the margins.
I promise you the patient who whined and moaned about the $200 is still going to be whining and moaning about the $170.
Whining and moaning isn't the issue. The issue is whether they would whine and not get care or whine and get care.
In an environment of increased competition, your profitability numbers would also change. One could, for instance, run a hygiene clinic with proportionately less overhead than a full-service dental clinic. The dentist would become sort of like a specialist to whom patients are referred. That would mean there would be the option of saving more than $30.
Now let's say we completely delicense the profession and open it up to anyone who will meet infection control and materials standards; the average salary for a dentist drops from $120,000 to $40,000 - a mere third of what it was prior to your scenario. The patient who was paying $200 for his work is now paying $160. WOW! he saved $40 and all he had to was put his health in the hands of some ***** who bought a handpiece on ebay.
The patient doesn't have to. The patient can still choose to go to a better dentist, one who has all sorts of high tech toys and cutting edge training. The issue is whether patients should be prevented by the government from seeking lower quality care.
My point, in short, is that many of you act quite inconsistently when you appeal to the rhetoric of capitalism and free trade and ignore the public protection your field enjoys. With that protection comes some level of duty to the public. After all, even lawyers do pro bono work on occasion.
