Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excuse me.. I don't know about you.. but I don't want ANYONE doing ANYTHING that isn't [1] licensed to do it.. ESPECIALLY medince.
can you imagine if people walked around [2] calling themselves a DR when they couldn't pass the MINIMUM standards required to be licensed??
Come on.. you can't be serious! It's there for your PROTECTION against [3] QUACKS and WACKADOOS
The problem came with t creation of the [4] HMO.. thanks to NIxon!!
Your colorful opinions are not supported by the facts.
[1] A license is a permission, from government, to do that which is a tort, a trespass or otherwise not allowed by law. A physician's license to practice medicine is the permission to commit manslaughter without criminal liability.
Why would not having a license be a disability to the patient? It only means that the care giver would have no immunity from criminal prosecution for killing the patient.
I'd prefer not to be killed by the care giver. Wouldn't you?
[2] The honorable title of "doctor" was for one who taught. The profession of physician took the title to upgrade their public relations - which wasn't held in high esteem in the not too recent past. The "minimum standards" for licensing consists of passing the examination preceded by attending an "approved" medical school (limited enrollment = enforced scarcity). If credentials are your litmus test, then let the profession open testing to all, regardless of how and where they learned their skills. Make the exam comprehensive, and held over several days, if necessary. Perhaps that will satisfy you, and relieve the shortage of credentialed care givers.
[3] Allopathic school of medicine, which enjoys a monopoly on prescribing "controlled substances", is not the only school of medicine. And it routinely denigrates its competitors as "Quacks", etc. If you have taken treatment from a Chiropractor, Acupuncturist, or other alternative medicine, you may have been helped by a "quack". Remember, physicians do not heal, they can only treat. People heal themselves. (Or do you discount the placebo effect, prayer, etc?)
[4] HMO's began decades before President Nixon's administration.
Ross-Loos Medical Group, established in 1929, is considered to be the first HMO in the United States; it was headquartered in Los Angeles and initially provided services for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. You may be confusing the Congress' Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 that required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options. It's not Nixon's fault. (Remember, the president EXECUTES the laws enacted by CONGRESS.)
Your colorful opinions are not supported by the facts.
[1] A license is a permission, from government, to do that which is a tort, a trespass or otherwise not allowed by law. A physician's license to practice medicine is the permission to commit manslaughter without criminal liability.
Why would not having a license be a disability to the patient? It only means that the care giver would have no immunity from criminal prosecution for killing the patient.
I'd prefer not to be killed by the care giver. Wouldn't you?
[2] The honorable title of "doctor" was for one who taught. The profession of physician took the title to upgrade their public relations - which wasn't held in high esteem in the not too recent past. The "minimum standards" for licensing consists of passing the examination preceded by attending an "approved" medical school (limited enrollment = enforced scarcity). If credentials are your litmus test, then let the profession open testing to all, regardless of how and where they learned their skills. Make the exam comprehensive, and held over several days, if necessary. Perhaps that will satisfy you, and relieve the shortage of credentialed care givers.
[3] Allopathic school of medicine, which enjoys a monopoly on prescribing "controlled substances", is not the only school of medicine. And it routinely denigrates its competitors as "Quacks", etc. If you have taken treatment from a Chiropractor, Acupuncturist, or other alternative medicine, you may have been helped by a "quack". Remember, physicians do not heal, they can only treat. People heal themselves. (Or do you discount the placebo effect, prayer, etc?)
[4] HMO's began decades before President Nixon's administration.
Ross-Loos Medical Group, established in 1929, is considered to be the first HMO in the United States; it was headquartered in Los Angeles and initially provided services for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. You may be confusing the Congress' Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 that required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options. It's not Nixon's fault. (Remember, the president EXECUTES the laws enacted by CONGRESS.)
your nonsense about Dr's and license is just ridiculous!!
You go right ahead and let some unlicensed quack cut you open or treat you.
Im' sure most of this countries population would prefer those that are licensed and meet the standard for such a license.
I know I would.
But i'm sure there are a few basement Dr's without a license you can find somewhere in Queens NY>.. let me know how that works out for you
Does the United States Government permit non licensed persons - individuals who have not completed Medical School, to perform surgeries on people?
Your question shows a lack of knowledge about licensing.
A physician's license to practice medicine is permission to commit manslaughter without criminal liability.
Anyone can perform surgeries on anyone. The government will prosecute unlicensed practice of medicine by "persons liable". And if one injures or kills someone, in the course of that treatment, they are held criminally liable. Most likely it would involve a death. If only injury, the injured party may waive filing a criminal complaint against the unlicensed care giver.
To illustrate, you are part of a group, on a wilderness expedition, and a tragic accident takes place. You are forced to amputate a crushed limb, to extricate a trapped hiker. You place a tourniquet to stop blood flow. You have done obvious and deliberate harm to the person, in order to save their life.
Question: Are you a criminal, in violation of the law prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine, by applying a surgical technique to save a life?
There are those who believe health care should be a right. That statement is evidence of mass insanity or cognitive dissonance.
Let me rephrase it so it makes perfect sense.
1. HEALTH CARE (someone's labor) is a RIGHT (protected by Constitution).
2. RECEIVING HEALTH CARE (someone's labor) is a RIGHT (protected by Constitution).
3. COMPELLING someone else to do or pay for my health care is a RIGHT. (uh - no, that is involuntary servitude)
4. Giving HEALTH CARE is a RIGHT (nope - unlicensed practice of medicine is a crime).
So you see that what the government says is "health care reform" is not.
If you truly want universal health care, you need to decriminalize the giving of care, decriminalize the purchase of medicine and medical machinery, expand medical training and education, and eliminate tort liability by "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back."
But that requires a reduction in power, which the government is loathe to do.
Groan.
Nobody is buying, Jet.
Stop spamming.
If in pain, perhaps you should see a licensed physician.
I am not selling anything. Perhaps you need to see a licensed reading comprehension instructor.
There is nothing spammish about a cogent statement supported by points of logic. However, your useless criticism DOES qualify as a waste of bandwidth.
Which specific point to you dispute or find spammish?
1. HEALTH CARE (someone's labor) is a RIGHT (protected by Constitution).
2. RECEIVING HEALTH CARE (someone's labor) is a RIGHT (protected by Constitution).
3. COMPELLING someone else to do or pay for my health care is a RIGHT. (uh - no, that is involuntary servitude)
4. Giving HEALTH CARE is a RIGHT (nope - unlicensed practice of medicine is a crime).
Those are logical, clear and concise aspects of the whole argument over 'health care reform'.
You should be demanding the government to explain why free adult Americans, responsible for themselves, must first buy permission from a licensed person in order to buy prescriptions from another licensed person.
Why can't you be free to choose?
Doesn't that bureaucracy drive up the cost?
What logic is there in taking money from everyone's pockets, skimming a share for the benevolent administrators, then putting it into the care giver's pockets *(minus a cut for the same benevolent administrators).
Why not just let the customer pay the care giver directly, without the tax burdens involved?
Ask any physician if he'd be willing to accept less remuneration if he had ZERO tax liability, and ZERO malpractice insurance? Ask him how much less? 30%, 50%, 75%?
I think you'll find that 'debate' on the issue is carefully edited to exclude asking WHY we have allowed ourselves to be treated as if we're ignorant savages, irresponsible and idiotic.
OH, I apologize, just one look at the elected public servants and the electorate is all the explanation I need.
Here's some figures from the Mass. healthcare coverage. These are 2008 figures:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
"The lowest cost plan in the offering for the average 37-year-old, uninsured Massachusetts individual carries a five percent increase for exactly the same benefit levels as last year. While last year that plan cost $184, its estimated cost for July 1 under the new contract is $194. The cost to this same individual before health care reform was approximately $335. "
"The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system."
Also found that insurance companies are not mandated to accept anyone (like pre-existing) so you may well not GET the basic plan at anywhere near that price
"The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system."
Also found that insurance companies are not mandated to accept anyone (like pre-existing) so you may well not GET the basic plan at anywhere near that price
Yes I had read that somewhere else. Each year gets them more in the hole with this plan. It's obviously not working. The Fed really needs to study this to see what is going wrong so they don't march the rest of America down this very same path.
Your question shows a lack of knowledge about licensing.
Perhaps you need to take a step back, and lighten up a bit.
My "trivia" question was actually referencing Military Corpsman - who do field surgeries - sometime major - without necessarily having a "license" - and they perform their "duties" often under a lot of stressful conditions.
Take a chill pill - you seem to need it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
