Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Credentials, State vs. private
Message-ID: <112@l5.uucp>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 03:26:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.112
Posted: Fri Sep 13 03:26:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 20:27:08 EDT
References: <1208@ihlpg.UUCP> <4297@alice.UUCP> <1224@ihlpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco
Lines: 21


Bill Tannenbaum

	I don't really care in principle whether the government or a
	private group does the credentialling itself.  But I want the
	government to enforce it ahead of time, not ex post facto when
	it may be too late.  Of course, if multiple private groups do
	the credentialling, I might notwant to have to become an
	authority on WHICH private groups to trust.  So I might want
	the government to approve the private credentialling groups.

There are frauds passing themselves off as doctors right now. That there
are governments does not prevent this. If you like the current doctors,
all you have to do is only accept AMA accredited doctors. Why do you believe
that having the government approve the private credentialling groups is
going to do anything above and beyond only going to AMA registered doctors?

-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa