Originally Posted by
dimethylsea
1Bad65,
Honest question for you.
Sure thing. I always answer questions posed to me. It's how people should debate and compare ideas.
Originally Posted by
dimethylsea
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)?
For the first part, I do agree with the Government licensing physicians, to an extent. By that I mean the patient has the right to know the doctor they see is licensed if he has MD after his name. Practicing without a license, and not clearly informing the public, should indeed be a crime. Now if someone wants to open say a holistic medicine clininc, and is not a licensed physician, they should be free to as long it's clearly posted the practicioner is not licensed by the Government. The patient should also have to sign a release saying he/she understands the practicioner is not licensed by the Government.
I think the Government should do similar to what is being done now. License certain medications, like narcotics, muscle relaxers, etc, but not the the "low/no-abuse meds". Keep in mind, I could care less if someone wants to take a ton of muscle relaxers and risk death for a high. That's their business. But those do need to be regulated, as someone could abuse them at other's expense, say by spiking someone's drink/food for bad purposes.
Originally Posted by
dimethylsea
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.
Even though Govenrment has passed laws and meddled, it is still ultimately an American citizen's right to have a jury trial. The Government cannot put you in prison without a guilty plea or a conviction by your peers. I firmly believe in jury nullification in CERTAIN instances. If I was on a jury for a guy being tried for practicing medicine without a license, and his defense was that he openly told every patient he was not a lilcensed doctor (and he proved that), I would not vote to convict him.
Originally Posted by
dimethylsea
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.
The Government does not need to meddle when it involces them giving someone something that someone else earned, like "free" health insurance. That's wrong. It's also wrong (and quite honestly criminal, imo) for the Government to have the final say in who does and who does not receive treatment. This a very slippery slope. Very, very evil Government/dictators have used weapons like choosing who is worth medical procedures and who is not worth medical procedures. It's something that free people should be, quite frankly, terrified of giving that power to any Government.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams