1Bad65,

Honest question for you.

Do you think enough of the idea of free markets in medicine to think that mandatory medical licensure is a mistake? I.e. is it right that people can be tried in court and put in jail for "practicing medicine without a license"? Even if they clearly say "I am not a M.D./physician"?

Is it right that the government should restrict the sale of medications (and I'm referring to low/no-abuse potential meds like antibiotics or HCTZ) to those who have a order from a government blessed doctor, physician assistant or nurse-practioner (i.e. a licensed primary care provider)?

My thinking goes like this.
If you honestly believe in non-interference by government in healthcare then how can one support medical licensure laws and classifying of medicines and medical devices as "by order of a physician only"?

Now if someone thinks goverment has the right/duty/responsibility to meddle in healthcare.. then obviously they might think it's only a matter of what is "practical" and "most effective" (I think Obama and most Demos feel this way).

What confuses me is how some people rail against "goverment involved in healthcare" but they think it's ok for government to meddle in licensure, all kinds of malpractice and practice laws, fund medicare, support monopolies by various groups etc.

I don't see how they can justify this.

You don't like goverment in healthcare. Is this because you think it's wrong for goverment to do so (and if so.. is it ok to have them licensing M.D.s and all the other stuff? why?)... and if you don't think it's wrong for goverment to meddle in principle.. is it only that you don't think *this particular type* of meddling will prove impractical and be a failure?

This isn't an argumentative question btw.. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you stand and why.