Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: re: Why not now
Message-ID: <825@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 10:51:17 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.825
Posted: Tue Nov 19 10:51:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:57:10 EST
References: <160@mck-csc.UUCP> <28200286@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 55

In article <28200286@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
> Doctors, licensed as they are, are not a bad example.  The thing I'd
> do in a libertarian society is go with a large health center, and keep
> an eye out for reports of malpractice -- JUST AS YOU DO NOW....

Huh?  I doubt that many people on the net can name one doctor from a
report on malpractice.  So how are we keeping an eye out for it?

Why isn't somebody making a profit right now with a malpractice suit
database?  No slander involved: just a collection of public records of
cases filed.

> It would be dangerous to think that just because doctors can be sued
> for their mistakes, and perhaps prevented from practice, that they
> couldn't kill you by accident or incompetence.

Of course it might be more dangerous still in Libertaria, where doctors,
instruments, and drugs are unlicensed and possibly harmful or ineffective.

> Of course, in Libertaria, Doctors wouldn't be so able to quash
> competition by limiting medical-school enrollment, or prevent
> people from putting up bonds to warrant their success as 
> practitioners..... 

Right.  Anyone can just say "I'm a doctor".  Medical schools can lower
their standards and provide incomplete (but oh so economical) educations.
Produce class after class of "doctors" that nobody would want to insure,
post bond for, whatever.

> To your question as to which is the more expensive method, I point out
> that the current system permits an artificial limit on the number of
> doctors, which in turn keeps prices up.   How much?  A tougher question,
> but whatever the amount, it must surely be included in the cost of
> the current system vs. a free one.

Of course a "free" system has hidden costs which you haven't mentioned.
Such as increased malpractice, decreased reliability, etc.

That same free system also opens the door to a host of other concealed
costs.  Such as TB from contaminated meat that should have been condemned.
Who's going to be able to pin down the multitudinous sources?  Such as
ergot in grains.  Such as poorly pasteurized milk?

Rich people will be able to afford to buy from merchants who spend more
money advertising their quality control than they spend on their quality
control.  The poor will have to buy elsewhere, and will be saddled with
the risks of the "free" system becauser they cannot afford to buy the
protections.

Likewise, the poor would be saddled with the risks and costs of the
"free" Libertarian medical system, because they could not afford to buy
the more expensive "high-quality" (what we consider standard) care.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh