Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The medical industry is not regulated?
Message-ID: <3390@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 00:39:29 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3390
Posted: Thu Feb 14 00:39:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 03:50:38 EST
References: <250@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 31

>> I am not suggesting that the way to lower health care costs is to
>> deregulate the medical industry -- I am stating it outright.
>> 
>> The number of malpractice suits is clear evidence that the licensing
>> system does not prevent incompetents from practicing medicine.
>> In fact, I claim it makes it somewhat easier, because it provides
>> the gullible with a substitute for reputation.

> So you would solve that problem by making it easier still for
> incompetents to practice medicine? Do you expect that incompetent
> doctors will somehow vanish or be forced into line by the AMA?
> Curiouser and curiouser.

I can think of two good reasons why abolishing government regulation
of the medical industry would make it harder, not easier, for
incompetents to practice.

	1. If physicians were permitted to advertise, it might
	   be possible for prospective patients to compare their
	   qualifications.

	2. I understand that most of the malpractice claims
	   come from a small number of physicians, but the
	   insurance companies are generally required by law
	   to charge the same rate for everyone.  In a free
	   market, incompetents would not be able to afford
	   to stay in business very long.

Although it is nice that deregulating medicine would improve
the customers' log, I think it is almost irrelevant because I
don't think that government has the moral right to do it in the first place.