Joe Biden promises to "provide health care for all"

[deleted480308]

Yeah, I mean there are just plenty of examples. Child labor, price gouging, unfair hiring practices, etc. It's a nice idea to think that there will be enough companies that do the right thing, but I guess I just disagree where someone's rights end. Your right to be an dingus ends where it affects another person's rights.

I’m going to disagree with “price gouging”, the abilty to charge more for scarcity is an important right

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

They were the “gets out of hand” example, a private company should never have been allowed to act like a defacto govt and murder people

That's... What happens without government intervention. Left uncontrolled, corporations become their own governments, hire enforcers, and oppress individuals, markets, and their workers. The PA state police are a good example of that- they were originally the coal and iron police, a private force hired by mining companies to assault workers that got out of line

 

[Mad Jack]

it's all kind of off topic though, hopefully we get some form of universal coverage in the next decade or so

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I’m going to disagree with “price gouging”, the abilty to charge more for scarcity is an important right

So you don't think charging so much that people can't afford basic goods is out of hand?

 

[FutureInternist]

Or an airline can stop buying boeing which incentivizes them to get in line, same with customers and ford

i agree though there is a place for govt somewhere

If protection via police is a gov function, as you have stated before, then I don’t see why these, perhaps more important, ways of protecting the masses is not.

Boeing knowingly farmed out the work to folks in another country, then proceeded to not listen to engineers’ recommendations and as a result approx 600 people died.
No mass shooting event etc has resulted in such a loss.

Oil spills create billions in damage, not to mention the environment.

Agree that Agent Orange use was bad

The damage done by these companies is immense, they know it and its built into their books.

Its easy to say to buy another plane but guess what... thats another company (airline) being asked to do something for the good of people, voluntarily, which will not happen.
And people HAVE to fly, so they are then stuck with whatever airline using whichever plane.
It is only with the gov’s immense pressure and ability to sanction and fine that there is some semblance of quality and some modicum of trust using these products and services.

Yes the gov was complicit in the continued racism but it was also the gov who forced desegregation of schools.
No individual could have done that, and telling all Black people to move to a Northern state is not feasible, nor should be needed to get the idiotic Southern racists to see the light.

 

[deleted480308]

That's... What happens without government intervention. Left uncontrolled, corporations become their own governments, hire enforcers, and oppress individuals, markets, and their workers. The PA state police are a good example of that- they were originally the coal and iron police, a private force hired by mining companies to assault workers that got out of line

And that’s a thing worth stopping, I feel like you are arguing against anarchy which isn’t me

 

[deleted480308]

So you don't think charging so much that people can't afford basic goods is out of hand?

I don’t think any govt should tell someone what they are allowed to charge for their property or services (either gouging or minimum wage). There are plenty of things some people can’t afford

 

[deleted480308]

If protection via police is a gov function, as you have stated before, then I don’t see why these, perhaps more important, ways of protecting the masses is not.

Boeing knowingly farmed out the work to folks in another country, then proceeded to not listen to engineers’ recommendations and as a result approx 600 people died.
No mass shooting event etc has resulted in such a loss.

Oil spills create billions in damage, not to mention the environment.

Agree that Agent Orange use was bad

The damage done by these companies is immense, they know it and its built into their books.

Its easy to say to buy another plane but guess what... thats another company (airline) being asked to do something for the good of people, voluntarily, which will not happen.
And people HAVE to fly, so they are then stuck with whatever airline using whichever plane.
It is only with the gov’s immense pressure and ability to sanction and fine that there is some semblance of quality and some modicum of trust using these products and services.

Yes the gov was complicit in the continued racism but it was also the gov who forced desegregation of schools.
No individual could have done that, and telling all Black people to move to a Northern state is not feasible, nor should be needed to get the idiotic Southern racists to see the light.

People generally don’t “have” to fly, it’s a convenience and the safety of doing so is a part of the equation

and your desegregation argument wasn’t govt protecting people from bad private interests, it was govt stopping govt from being bad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I don’t think any govt should tell someone what they are allowed to charge for their property or services (either gouging or minimum wage). There are plenty of things some people can’t afford

I'm not talking about cars, I'm talking about food. Like basic sustenance.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not talking about cars, I'm talking about food. Like basic sustenance.

So am i. My need doesn’t mean I get to to tell the govt your price

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So am i. My need doesn’t mean I get to to tell the govt your price

That's ridiculous. If I am the only grocery store in town (not uncommon in small towns), and I decide to charge $10 for a banana, that is absurd because no, people can't just buy somewhere else unless they want to drive an hour both ways, which isn't possible for a lot of people. There is a point at which is becomes price gouging and is putting an undue burden on other people.

 

[deleted480308]

That's ridiculous. If I am the only grocery store in town (not uncommon in small towns), and I decide to charge $10 for a banana, that is absurd because no, people can't just buy somewhere else unless they want to drive an hour both ways, which isn't possible for a lot of people. There is a point at which is becomes price gouging and is putting an undue burden on other people.

Then buy your banana elsewhere or don’t eat bananas or start your own banana store. No one owes you a banana at $x dollars

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Then buy your banana elsewhere or don’t eat bananas or start your own banana store. No one owes you a banana at $x dollars

Your answer to not being able to afford food because the prices are unreasonably high is to stop eating. This is why no one takes the libertarian philosophy seriously.

 

[deleted480308]

Your answer to not being able to afford food because the prices are unreasonably high is to stop eating. This is why no one takes the libertarian philosophy seriously.

Food isn’t a right. Grow it, buy it, ask charity to help you, or don’t have it. That’s pretty much how it is

no one has a natural right to demand other people feed them

 

[FutureInternist]

Your answer to not being able to afford food because the prices are unreasonably high is to stop eating. This is why no one takes the libertarian philosophy seriously.

And yet he keeps eating subsidised food from Wal-Mart.

Anyone willing to let their kid die if they can’t pay for it is off their rocker.

No answer to what happens when a monopoly (like Walmart certainly is in lots of small towns) decides to charge $10 for water? Or not serve black folks.
Just move, he says... which is idiotic.

 

[deleted480308]

And yet he keeps eating subsidised food from Wal-Mart.

Anyone willing to let their kid die if they can’t pay for it is off their rocker.

No answer to what happens when a monopoly (like Walmart certainly is in lots of small towns) decides to charge $10 for water? Or not serve black folks.
Just move, he says... which is idiotic.

I have absolutely answered the question

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

That's... What happens without government intervention. Left uncontrolled, corporations become their own governments, hire enforcers, and oppress individuals, markets, and their workers. The PA state police are a good example of that- they were originally the coal and iron police, a private force hired by mining companies to assault workers that got out of line

Didn't the EIC have basically a government backed monopoly?

 

[Mad Jack]

Didn't the EIC have basically a government backed monopoly?

Yes and no. There was a period in which the BEIC obtained the sole rights to British trade in India in exchange for several large loans to the British crown, but other countries could technically still engage in trade. Practically, the BEIC controlled everything in large sections of India, however, so other countries practically were unable to engage in endeavors there. At one point another British company was allowed, which the BEIC was forced to tolerate, as they could not legally retaliate. Absent the crown forcing that allowamce, however, the BEIC would have dealt with them the same as they did with any foreign "interlopers," as they deemed them

Of course, even this wasn't enough for the Company and at one point when Britain effectively controlled the subcontinent, they paid Indian soldiers to attack British soldiers in an attempt to destabilize British rule and again gain control. So the short of it is, things were very complicated. But at one point their army and navy were twice the size of Britain's and they could effectively have toppled most nations in the world. Highly recommend anyone read a detailed history of your choice on the topic, the whole era was fascinating and many of the early limits on corporate power in the West originated because of it.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yes and no. There was a period in which the BEIC obtained the sole rights to British trade in India in exchange for several large loans to the British crown, but other countries could technically still engage in trade. Practically, the BEIC controlled everything in large sections of India, however, so other countries practically were unable to engage in endeavors there. At one point another British company was allowed, which the BEIC was forced to tolerate, as they could not legally retaliate. Absent the crown forcing that allowamce, however, the BEIC would have dealt with them the same as they did with any foreign "interlopers," as they deemed them

Of course, even this wasn't enough for the Company and at one point when Britain effectively controlled the subcontinent, they paid Indian soldiers to attack British soldiers in an attempt to destabilize British rule and again gain control. So the short of it is, things were very complicated. But at one point their army and navy were twice the size of Britain's and they could effectively have toppled most nations in the world. Highly recommend anyone read a detailed history of your choice on the topic, the whole era was fascinating and many of the early limits on corporate power in the West originated because of it.

So yes, got it.

 

[Mad Jack]

So yes, got it.

It wasn't for the entire existence of the company, it was from 1712-1786, while the company itself was around from 1600-1874. Prior to and after their monopoly status they did equally as terrible things, includimg enslavement and engaging in acts of war against the Indian people, other nations, and other corporations.

 

[AMEHigh]

Taking enough of people’s money that it significantly limits their lifestyle (in your example, taking their Ferraris and selling them so everyone can have a corolla and then they can only afford a bmw or whatever) and giving it to others is redistribution. You can have people who make more pay more without forcing them to be unable to afford their lifestyle.

I haven’t read this whole post, but what does "unable to afford their lifestyle" mean?

Isn’t it true that none of us are able to afford a certain lifestyle because we have to pay taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in taxes and I sure as hell could be living a lot more of a lavish lifestyle if I had that money in my account.

So you’re against taxes at all because it doesn’t allow people to live up to their true potential of a lifestyle. That’s not just the case for the uber wealthy.

But the bottom line for me personally, I have very little sympathy for billionaires. They all use tax loop holes while the rest of us get poorer. The trump tax changes certainly skewed in favor of certain groups of people.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I haven’t read this whole post, but what does "unable to afford their lifestyle" mean?

Isn’t it true that none of us are able to afford a certain lifestyle because we have to pay taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in taxes and I sure as hell could be living a lot more of a lavish lifestyle if I had that money in my account.

So you’re against taxes at all because it doesn’t allow people to live up to their true potential of a lifestyle. That’s not just the case for the uber wealthy.

But the bottom line for me personally, I have very little sympathy for billionaires. They all use tax loop holes while the rest of us get poorer. The trump tax changes certainly skewed in favor of certain groups of people.

I guess if you only read that post then maybe you could characterize my argument that way, but I said in another post I'm not against taxes.

 

[AMEHigh]

I guess if you only read that post then maybe you could characterize my argument that way, but I said in another post I'm not against taxes.

Thanks for clarifying, will read rest of post when I have time

 

[emergentmd]

Allowing for discrimination against gays. - This is just made up. Behr is left wing nut does blackface and she was praising their race. Va governor Blackface then crickets. Dems are just as racist ir not more.
Allowing for foreign powers to meddle in elections. Ummmm, Obama was president and knew of this but he didn't do/say anything. Trump gets elected and suddenly he is allowing meddling? All gov meddle in each others elections. If you think the US do not meddle in other government's functions then you are a hypocrite.
Making voting harder and harder. More ignorance. Dems don't care about voting, they just want people who will vote for them vote. If you are toooo lazy to walk to the polls then you should not vote assuming you are able.
Packing courts with judges with minimal to no experience, all with only a 2 hour “debate”. Again, subjective talk. Dems do the same. But when Rep does it, the media thinks its some new sneaky act
Cutting food stamp benefits. Some people needs food stamps cut so they can actually go out work rather than having generational poverty
Fighting minimum wage increases.
Giving further tax breaks to millionaires. If Dems want to increase millonaire taxes, why don't they just donate money to the government. When is Obama going to give 40% of his Millions in book deals back to the Gov?
Allowing corporations to not pay taxes. More crapload of ignorance. If laws allow business to have no net profit then they pay no taxes. I am sure you fight for every deduction you are allowed.
Cutting unemployment benefits. Get to work and stop having generational poverty. Stop crippling the poor.
Cutting meals on wheels programs. Have you ever donated or volunteer for similar programs?
Wasting $ on a border wall that has no chance of working. If you dont' think borders help, why not just open it freely. Will you be the 1st to open your doors to house migrants?
Holding the covid relief package hostage until they could put in ANOTHER $50 billion worth of tax cuts for those that don’t need it. Just regurgitating more Dem talk
Trying to privatise mail so people have an even harder time voting. Lots of talk, little proof. Why didn't Obama fix this when he had power along with congress?
Making it harder to have medical and reproductive health coverage. Are you talking about abortion, aka killing fetus? That is what they promote.
Not believing in, or doing anything about, climate change. Believing and knowing what best to tackle it is a diff story. Throwing money at something without a good plan is more waste of money
Letting Russia get away with putting bounties on US soldiers. Geez, like this never happened in the past. I guess Obama/Hilary letting Bengazi diplomats die without help is OK?

How about Hunter Biden's lack of coverage or investigation? How about Dems pushing through ACA and then exempting themselves and a select group on dem backers? How about Clinton doing 3 strikes and Obama not fixing it until Racist Trump comes and changes it?

I didn't have the patience to read the rest but let me add my take to this.

 

[deleted480308]

I haven’t read this whole post, but what does "unable to afford their lifestyle" mean?

Isn’t it true that none of us are able to afford a certain lifestyle because we have to pay taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in taxes and I sure as hell could be living a lot more of a lavish lifestyle if I had that money in my account.

So you’re against taxes at all because it doesn’t allow people to live up to their true potential of a lifestyle. That’s not just the case for the uber wealthy.

But the bottom line for me personally, I have very little sympathy for billionaires. They all use tax loop holes while the rest of us get poorer. The trump tax changes certainly skewed in favor of certain groups of people.

As we’re referencing federal income tax, no, it’s not true that all of us are paying. A lot of earners pay none every year

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

As we’re referencing federal income tax, no, it’s not true that all of us are paying. A lot of earners pay none every year

And possibly more frustrating, a lot of super high earners pay less as a percent than us doctors do.

 

[deleted480308]

And possibly more frustrating, a lot of super high earners pay less as a percent than us doctors do.

Deal, flat rate from the first dollar, no deducations ever regardless of income

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Deal, flat rate from the first dollar, no deducations ever regardless of income

Good luck getting that past the CPA lobby

 

[deleted480308]

Good luck getting that past the CPA lobby

Or politicians who campaign on money from lobbyists trying to get those deductions

 

[GH253]

By definition, all medical care rendered by government is incorrect or sub-optimal. Under laissez-faire (i.e. an unfettered free market), the patient would have found a superior value from a private company.

 

[zeloc]

That's ridiculous. If I am the only grocery store in town (not uncommon in small towns), and I decide to charge $10 for a banana, that is absurd because no, people can't just buy somewhere else unless they want to drive an hour both ways, which isn't possible for a lot of people. There is a point at which is becomes price gouging and is putting an undue burden on other people.

This is a nonsense example. The cost to do business in a small town is much higher because they have to have their products shipped there, which increases the cost (if it cannot be made locally), they don't have the economics of scale of a chain store, etc, etc. So the prices are going to be higher. If people want to live in a small town that is far from other towns/cities, then they need to accept that some costs are going to be higher. There's no reason for the rest of the country to subsidize their costs when they willingly decided to live there. If someone builds a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, it's not incumbent on any grocery store to open up to serve that 1 customer, nor for any other services to be provisioned.

If you owned the only grocery store in town and started charging $10 for a banana, a combination of 2 things would happen: 1. ppl would stop buying bananas, and your bananas would go to waste. 2. Someone else would start selling bananas at a cheaper price. It does not require a grocery store to do that, many convenience stores sell fruit, and it doesn't have to be a convenience store, anyone could sell it. All it takes is 1 person who is traveling into the town once/week on some other business, and they will start bringing bananas to supply to a seller. If the price is $10 because that is the actual cost of obtaining bananas in that town due to supply constraints, natural disaster, a banana-eating insect epidemic, or some other factor, then forcing the business to sell it lower means they are making a loss on it, which does not make sense for anyone, because they are either going to stop selling bananas or the store will go out of business if they are forced to sell everything below cost.

Price gouging only happens when there isn't competition, and that only happens when the government restricts competition.

 

[DrNotaDr]

This is a nonsense example. The cost to do business in a small town is much higher because they have to have their products shipped there, which increases the cost (if it cannot be made locally), they don't have the economics of scale of a chain store, etc, etc. So the prices are going to be higher. If people want to live in a small town that is far from other towns/cities, then they need to accept that some costs are going to be higher. There's no reason for the rest of the country to subsidize their costs when they willingly decided to live there. If someone builds a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, it's not incumbent on any grocery store to open up to serve that 1 customer, nor for any other services to be provisioned.

If you owned the only grocery store in town and started charging $10 for a banana, a combination of 2 things would happen: 1. ppl would stop buying bananas, and your bananas would go to waste. 2. Someone else would start selling bananas at a cheaper price. It does not require a grocery store to do that, many convenience stores sell fruit, and it doesn't have to be a convenience store, anyone could sell it. All it takes is 1 person who is traveling into the town once/week on some other business, and they will start bringing bananas to supply to a seller. If the price is $10 because that is the actual cost of obtaining bananas in that town due to supply constraints, natural disaster, a banana-eating insect epidemic, or some other factor, then forcing the business to sell it lower means they are making a loss on it, which does not make sense for anyone, because they are either going to stop selling bananas or the store will go out of business if they are forced to sell everything below cost.

Price gouging only happens when there isn't competition, and that only happens when the government restricts competition.

Governments aren’t solely responsible for restricting competition. Plenty of cartels exist.

 

[GH253]

Governments aren’t solely responsible for restricting competition. Plenty of cartels exist.

The only thing in the world that can restrict competition is the physical force of government. Regulation of the medical trade in the forms of physican licensure and the FDA are the fundamental reasons the cost of medical care is far beyond the average person’s means.

 

[FutureInternist]

The only thing in the world that can restrict competition is the physical force of government. Regulation of the medical trade in the forms of physican licensure and the FDA are the fundamental reasons the cost of medical care is far beyond the average person’s means.

So you would be Ok with anyone claiming to be a doctor and “treating” pts?

Could it be less onerous, Yes... is it unnecessary... F No !!!!

 

[SurfingDoctor]

The only thing in the world that can restrict competition is the physical force of government. Regulation of the medical trade in the forms of physican licensure and the FDA are the fundamental reasons the cost of medical care is far beyond the average person’s means.

The American Association of Nurse Practitioners approves of this message...

 

[zeloc]

So you would be Ok with anyone claiming to be a doctor and “treating” pts?

Could it be less onerous, Yes... is it unnecessary... F No !!!!

Someone who claims to be a doctor and isn't is fraud. That has nothing to do with licensure.

Are you involved in hiring physicians at your institution? Let's assume that requirements for physician licensure are removed. Are you suddenly going to start hiring ppl that didn't go to med school? Are you going to stop looking at transcripts and letters of recommendation? Are you going to start hiring ppl that didn't complete residency? Are you going to take ppl who haven't completed the USMLEs?

There was opposition to nurse practitioners, but we can see today that they can play a positive role in healthcare. We know they are not doctors and cannot do everything doctors do, and we also know that they cost less and allow ppl to have access to healthcare that otherwise wouldn't.

 

[FutureInternist]

Someone who claims to be a doctor and isn't is fraud. That has nothing to do with licensure.

Are you involved in hiring physicians at your institution? Let's assume that requirements for physician licensure are removed. Are you suddenly going to start hiring ppl that didn't go to med school? Are you going to stop looking at transcripts and letters of recommendation? Are you going to start hiring ppl that didn't complete residency? Are you going to take ppl who haven't completed the USMLEs?

There was opposition to nurse practitioners, but we can see today that they can play a positive role in healthcare. We know they are not doctors and cannot do everything doctors do, and we also know that they cost less and allow ppl to have access to healthcare that otherwise wouldn't.

It is the fact that government says that no one w/o a degree (as far as docs are concerned) can call themselves a doctor that keeps folks from doing it.

Hiring for a hospital is different than being a PCP in a self practice, since I could just go to any small town, and open up an office

When you buy a car, you can be assured (barring fraud) of certain minimum standards that the car meets.
Same with someone calling themselves a doctor.

Again, I agree that it could be less onerous, but it is still essential

 

[qwerty89]

No you got that right, I don't agree with the majority of what he believes. I'm just not rehashing the last 7 years of arguments. You're welcome to search our respective post histories. Trust me, there's a lot of it.

That aside, this post is exactly what I was hoping for. This is how you argue against hard core libertarians. Its also why, as I've said, I do have respect for SB because all of these points have been brought up before and his answers are the same and consistent.

Companies shouldn't discriminate, but they should be allowed to. He's openly said that he would not patronize establishments that do discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual preference. I believe him.

Yes, lack of regulation into providing medical services probably would result in people being harmed. You would also likely get more people looking more carefully into who they choose for care. When I had my DPC practice, almost every patient made sure I was board certified. I have never been asked that in insurance practice. You would of course get people who go to quacks, but we have that now (DCs, NDs).

As for medical care, I have yet to find a hospital that wouldn't let you do a payment plan if you ask for one. If cost was an issue, I feel pretty safe saying that's what he would do. I've had to do it before - genetic testing is very pricey on a resident's salary and not covered by insurance in most situations.

His views absolutely put a lot on the less fortunate. Its one of the reasons I disagree with him frequently. Everyone is aware of this but I doubt he'd change his tune even if he were put into that situation.

Old Milton would agree

 

[GH253]

So you would be Ok with anyone claiming to be a doctor and “treating” pts?

Could it be less onerous, Yes... is it unnecessary... F No !!!!

There is no evidence that government licensing of doctors improves patients' health in any way. The notion that the government knows what constitutes "proper" medical training is not only dubious and unproven, it's actually stupid.

 

[FutureInternist]

There is no evidence that government licensing of doctors improves patients' health in any way. The notion that the government knows what constitutes "proper" medical training is not only dubious and unproven, it's actually stupid.

It is the government ability to punish that keeps the hospitals from hiring unqualified doctors.

As mentioned before, in another comment, when you buy a car there is a certain minimum standard that you know has been met (since the gov forces manufacturers to do so)

Same with doctors

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It is the government ability to punish that keeps the hospitals from hiring unqualified doctors.

As mentioned before, in another comment, when you buy a car there is a certain minimum standard that you know has been met (since the gov forces manufacturers to do so)

Same with doctors

Nope, otherwise hospitals wouldn't care about board certification. There are some that don't, but there are WAY more that do.

Its also why doctors with multiple lawsuits and license suspensions can keep finding work.

 

[FutureInternist]

Nope, otherwise hospitals wouldn't care about board certification. There are some that don't, but there are WAY more that do.

Its also why doctors with multiple lawsuits and license suspensions can keep finding work.

Unqualified as in not having attended medical school, residency etc.

 

[GH253]

It is the government ability to punish that keeps the hospitals from hiring unqualified doctors.

As mentioned before, in another comment, when you buy a car there is a certain minimum standard that you know has been met (since the gov forces manufacturers to do so)

Same with doctors

You are defining a "qualified" person as someone having been trained to government standards. This is epistemologically wrong. There neither any evidence no reason to believe that the government standard is correct, nor that it superior to any alternative that would arise in the absence of occupational licensing. Believing that politicians know who is best qualified to determine standards for medical training is idiotic.

 

[GH253]

Unqualified as in not having attended medical school, residency etc.

There is no evidence that contemporary medical school and residency are requirements to attain competence.

 

[FutureInternist]

You are defining a "qualified" person as someone having been trained to government standards. This is epistemologically wrong. There neither any evidence no reason to believe that the government standard is correct, nor that it superior to any alternative that would arise in the absence of occupational licensing. Believing that politicians know who is best qualified to determine standards for medical training is idiotic.

Someone broke out a thesaurus

You do you and go to unlicensed mechanics to fix your car, unlicensed construction workers to build your house, and fly on “Our pilots are not licensed” Airway..

Not sure of your political leanings but what you seem to want is a Libertarian “get gumment outta my bizness” strategy which is only slightly less idiotic than flat-earthers

Once again, it is the government which is enforcing the standards (set by AAMC etc) and were it not for it, anyone can claim to be a doctor and do surgery on your family.... You OK with that?

 

[GH253]

Someone broke out a thesaurus

You do you and go to unlicensed mechanics to fix your car, unlicensed construction workers to build your house, and fly on “Our pilots are not licensed” Airway..

Not sure of your political leanings but what you seem to want is a Libertarian “get gumment outta my bizness” strategy which is only slightly less idiotic than flat-earthers

Once again, it is the government which is enforcing the standards (set by AAMC etc) and were it not for it, anyone can claim to be a doctor and do surgery on your family.... You OK with that?

Saying that occupational licensure improves patients' health is a scientific claim, like saying a drug is efficacious. It requires proof. There is none. You make this assumption based on blind faith in government to tell you what's real—I call it the mystical government premise, and it's an anti-science mentality because it's a denial of logic. You want private individual to prove things to the government, and for the government to be the judge of proof, but for government to have to meet no burden of proof and for its claims to be beyond judgment. In your mind, the government is like a mystical oracle or diety.

 

[FutureInternist]

Saying that occupational licensure improves patients' health is a scientific claim, like saying a drug is efficacious. It requires proof. There is none. You make this assumption based on blind faith in government to tell you what's real—I call it the mystical government premise, and it's an anti-science mentality because it's a denial of logic. You want private individual to prove things to the government, and for the government to be the judge of proof, but for government to have to meet no burden of proof and for its claims to be beyond judgment. In your mind, the government is like a mystical oracle or diety.

The standard is set by AAMC.. Government enforces it.
You can argue that having to retake board after 10 years of practice has no bearing on your knowledge/expertise, and I won’t argue there, but there has to be some standard that distinguishes someone from knowing a pt’s head from their ass

 

[GH253]

The standard is set by AAMC.. Government enforces it.
You can argue that having to retake board after 10 years of practice has no bearing on your knowledge/expertise, and I won’t argue there, but there has to be some standard that distinguishes someone from knowing a pt’s head from their ass

There is no evidence that the AAMC leaders don't have their heads up their asses. They shouldn't have a monopoly on medical training.

 

[FutureInternist]

There is no evidence that the AAMC leaders don't have their heads up their asses. They shouldn't have a monopoly on medical training.

Alright dude/dudette,
Have fun in your Libertarian country with no government enforced standards as you car explodes, your house falls down, you drink even more poisoned water.

We’re done here

 

[DrNotaDr]

Alright dude/dudette,
Have fun in your Libertarian country with no government enforced standards as you car explodes, your house falls down, you drink even more poisoned water.

We’re done here

Anyone in medicine knows that the concept of people making the best choices for themselves is a lie.