Licenses and Certification Aren't Necessary

[fifthpaw]

I view licensing through facts and logic instead of propaganda. Here are the facts, beside the source I listed at the top, here's another. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688093. Licenses does not improve quality. This study along with many others showed no improvement, only rising cost.

Here's an article by pew that gives arguments for both sides about licenses. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/30/a-license-to-braid-hair-critics-say-state-licensing-rules-have-gone-too-far

Notice the ones advocating for licenses and saying it protects the public and the usual arguments are the ones who benefits from licenses. But where are the studies that prove what these authorities on the subject say is true? I can't find any. At best I'm given a history lesson like people selling snake oil and licenses put a stop to that. But that isn't true. Snake oil is more popular than ever. It goes by new age medicine and is protected by license such a acupuncture. But I did find studies saying licenses drive up cost and hurt low income people, and don't improve quality.

So when you you think, I want sources.

[AceRagz]

I am going to point out that acupuncture licenses are not medical licenses unless the doctor who gains an acupuncture license is already licensed in traditional medicine. Any other forms of new age medicine that is licensed are licensed under non medicinal licenses and they are not allowed to call themselves doctors. And a lot of the truly harmful alternative medicines are not allowed to be licensed at all. This is why new age medicine is mostly sold as books, videos, lessons.

[fifthpaw]

No, the doctor's license is to prove competency in your studies as an award after years of theoretical medical school and internship at a hospital.

Where's your source? Here's mine https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688093. And this is from 2016. Is that too old? A downgraded nursing license apparently was just as good as a full doctor's license.

THE LICENSE is there to prove standard and quality.

Again where's your source?

New age medicine is proven by anecdotes, which is one of the weakest types of proof and evidence

Exactly, so why are you giving me your anecdote about you picking license professionals?

an article that is more than 10 years old at this point WITH no cited sources or previous research articles referenced. Your linked article is an opinion piece with facts by a qualified writer (excuse the irony), but in no way would that article be published in any academic journal due to the lack of requirements it fulfills.

What are you talking about? The data is right there. The study used data from the New York City Department of Education, which cover the 1998–99 to 2004–05 school years and grades 3 through 8. The study sample includes 10,000 teachers in total. So a study by a Harvard Professor isn't good enough for you? Then how about the other research that you say wasn't mentioned. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176 Is the MIT Journal still not good enough for you? What does it being 10 years old matter? It's still relevant. How is it an opinion piece? Like I said, this study gets dismissed because of politics.

Again, where are your sources?

[fifthpaw]

They might not be allowed to be called doctors, but they're still licensed.

[AceRagz]

Yes but that is acupuncture and chiropractors. Stuff like Miracle Mineral Supplement (industrial bleach in reality) are not allowed to be licensed.

[fifthpaw]

I do like people who clarifies the details.

[WriterLinXiaolong]

This is from the journal of your first link: Relaxing Occupational Licensing
Requirements: Analyzing Wages and
Prices for a Medical Service
Chapter 5.5, pg 283

Even if this pattern does
not hold for some types of health services or for some patients, it is important
to note that if scope-of-practice deregulation leads to an increase in services of
lower quality but with greater convenience

To further assess the quality-related consequences of
allowing NPs to provide more services, we examine evidence of an increase in
major medical errors that could lead to serious injuries or death.

Chapter 6, pg 287

However, there is a need for
additional analysis on more medical procedures and further work on the implications for patients’ quality of care before these results can become the focus of
new public policies.

Despite all their research, they knew their report was still lacking.

The second link is not even a proper journal/article so I won't touch on it.

[GesuGesu]

I'm not arguing with you anymore. This is getting on my nerves too much.

[fifthpaw]

You are absolutely correct, but as I said in my first post

the AMA made it increasing difficult, but there are a few (admittedly still with problems such as sample size when comparing urgent cares that mostly use nurses and PAs)

That doesn't invalidate your argument that the study is still lacking. However, that study plus countless others that say the same thing, and the same people who are in favor of licensing blocking it over and over again to cause these problems to make the studies lack, plus studies that have no problems and conclude licensing is a problem is at the very least reasonable doubt.

As I said before and told others, if you cite solid evidence that licensing is good, then I will concede. You just need one. I already provided a few like the MIT journal that people discredit without any valid reasons. However, so far I'm the only one providing sources. I'm the only one saying I will change my mind. Everybody else has their mind fixed and provide no sources of their own to discredit my arguments.

[fifthpaw]

It finally happened. In my opinion I don't agree = flagged.

[Merle]

I am so confused as to why someone would argue for no licensing. Licensing is quality control, and in important branches like Health and Education, those are strictly neccesary. I´m not letting some random dork experiment with me or my education.

Sure, there are a lot of problems with the Health "industry". They´re not rooted in licensing, however. Most stem from capitatlizing a system that should be strictly a community effort and disconected from Earning based systems.
This is what leads to companies overselling their medicine, doctors getting paid for advertising certain medicine etc.
Same goes for education - the ability to gather the knowledge and pursue a certain license - should be open to all, and relatively affordable.

Like literally, if you didn´´ have licensing, do you know through what a mountain of garbage you would have to shift to find one good practioner? People aren´t all well minded and present you with wonderfull alternatives. As long as this system is tied to money, it´s flawed by definition.

[WriterLinXiaolong]

Well, I just used the article you linked to support your claim earlier.

Here's mine https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688093. And this is from 2016. Is that too old? A downgraded nursing license apparently was just as good as a full doctor's license.

Licenses does not improve quality

And yet, when you read the article itself,

Even if this pattern doesnot hold for some types of health services or for some patients, it is importantto note that if scope-of-practice deregulation leads to an increase in services oflower quality but with greater convenience
To further assess the quality-related consequences ofallowing NPs to provide more services, we examine evidence of an increase inmajor medical errors that could lead to serious injuries or death.

It already contradicted your own argument. I don't even have to pull out anything else since I can just use the article you shared. I mean, if it doesn't improve quality, why do you think the license downgrade have the effect of reduced quality instead? Does that mean if we remove license... then there will be no quality left?!

[ajcrwl]

"exposed" "facts and logic"
oh my

Here's an article by pew that gives arguments for both sides about licenses. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/30/a-license-to-braid-hair-critics-say-state-licensing-rules-have-gone-too-far

so, article is called
A License to Braid Hair? Critics Say State Licensing Rules Have Gone Too Far

In Indiana, Republican Gov. Mike Pence tried unsuccessfully to get a measure passed in 2013 that would have eliminated licensing requirements for more than a dozen occupations [...] The bill died from a lack of support in the General Assembly, but Pence did end up vetoing two bills that year that would have licensed diabetes educators, anesthesiologist assistants and dietitians

haha, Mike Pence is on his bullshit

“When you’re looking at high unemployment, you need all hands on deck,”

yeah, like precious irreplaceable HAIR BRAIDERS, lmao

said Republican state Rep. Tim Kelly, who sponsored one of the bills. “You don’t need some silly regulation keeping someone from earning a living.”

oh it's another republican butthurt about state regulations, nvm

anyway, from this article alone it's clear that the biggest problem is the fee people pay to obtain the license. so it essentially becomes a matter of gate keeping for low income workers who try to pursue their craft. blame capitalism, not licenses.

in mother russia, if i wanted to become a hair stylist, i would need to go to a school that teaches that and obtain a certificate and some kind of proof of competence, otherwise no one would hire me. on top of that, proof of health and license to work in cosmetology is required AND needs to be renewed every year to be able to work (same goes for every fast food industry worker, people who sell foods, etc except they get check ups and licenses for their perspective field of work). ya doing nails? get a certificate. working with dogs? veterinary school. a nurse? nurse's school. a doctor? gotta be a medical university/academy graduate with a specific field chosen by you and possibly attend multiple professional courses to broaden your knowledge and get certificates. teacher? same, and teachers also get a medical education and a cert to be able to work with children, AND if war comes to happen they will also be drafted into the army (yep).

we even have a saying that without the paper you're a poopoo. sure, this may lead to people simply buying licenses and the education system has worsened a lot over the last 15 years, but people who have gone though school and learned their craft are valued way more than nobodies without proof of their knowledge.

But where are the studies that prove what these authorities on the subject say is true?

"prove to me that the sky is up and the ground is down on the other side of the Earth! until then i believe that Australians walk on their hands!"

as I said, the debate isn't about the need to prove that people are actually competent and won't fuck up. it's about costs.

Employers first go through people they know who would be interested then recommendations from people they know. After all else is exhausted, the outside candidate is considered.

this only breeds incompetence. incompetence and corruption. friends hire friends and acquaintances. quality of work goes down. it gets just as harder to enter the field of work when there's a prerequisite to be somebody else's friend as when you need to pay a ginormous fee for a college and a license.

But that doesn't negate that non license people are just as good or just as bad as those who are licensed. Licenses are a liability protection and a political tool and not what everybody think it is. So I am all for hiring licensed electricians to protect yourself form the insurance companies if something went wrong.

finally some sense. this makes me think about another possible capitalistic corruption factor - if someone is profiting from selling licenses and they don't actually check how competent the person is, they should not be allowed to sell licenses.

my mom worked in education system control for many years so i know quite a lot about how this should work. she used to check schools and colleges, they had a list or requirements and laws every schools needs to abide by. if they didn't fit the requirements = license called off, they're not allowed to teach. same goes for universities. not equipped for making new specialists? say bye to your license and your diploma is worthless now. employers actually check for which universities are still licensed and if you present them with a worthless piece of paper they would think you're not worth it too. sometimes the requirements imposed on schools by the government were really ridiculous and i know that mom complained about that, her department would try to communicate how ineffective some measures are, pass it on to the state education department and further. it's a complicated system. still, it works and it protects both those who seek education from incompetent "teachers" and employers who seek to hire competent people (read: those who have the knowledge and skill needed to perform the job). saves time and some pain in the ass.
i've taken courses that weren't licensed to give out certificates but they did (some kind of homebrewed version) and they were neither worth my time and money, nor did they create any actual job opportunities for me. one comes to value state license more because it's widely recognized.

anyway, why are you all so damn serious about this on an internet forum about comics, jeez.

[Merle]

Honestly, Good on you for shifting through that article.
I would have expected someone sharing his clamis with "evidence" to actually have read their "evidence". This settles this whole thing for me.

[fifthpaw]

Looks like you didn't read the whole thing. Because it doesn't contradict,

To assess the quality
consequences of allowing NPs to provide more services, we examine evidence of an increase in
major errors in medical treatment that could lead to serious injuries or death.

We implement two approaches for evaluating quality changes. First, we estimate the
effects of the regulatory environment on infant mortality rates using state policy variations over
time. Since mortality is an extreme outcome that may not capture smaller nonfatal changes in
quality, we also examine the effects of relaxing the licensing requirements on the malpractice
insurance rates of physicians in the states that changed their statutes. In Table 11 we estimate the
influence of changing the statutes for NPs on mortality rates for children under the age of one
using a lagged model. We use this approach to capture the changes that occur over time
following the change in the statute on mortality. Specifically, we use infant mortality to adjust
for the influence the year after the regulation was enacted. The estimates in Table 11 use the
five-year mortality rate for the year after the regulation was changed, and then we subtracted the
five-year mortality rate for the current year. The procedure differences out five years of infant
mortality data, and we can estimate if the difference in mortality rates is affected by the changes
in regulation. The results in the table for both supervised/delegated and independent prescription
authorities show no influence of these changes in the regulatory law for infants who would likely
be most vulnerable to poor-quality services

again.

The results in the table for both supervised/delegated and independent prescription
authorities show no influence of these changes in the regulatory law for infants who would likely
be most vulnerable to poor-quality services

All your quoting did was prove the researchers are being through by examining if there's evidence of an increase in error. Which it didn't.

[fifthpaw]

I did read the evidence, and just proved WriterLinXiaolong didn't read it. Maybe you should read it instead of taking someone's word.

[ajcrwl]

so you favour proof and evidence but don't like licenses which are meant to be the proof of competence? oh the irony. maybe some people should request a license instead of taking someone's word about their competence.

[fifthpaw]

1. Mike Pence is on his bullshit. I ain't no republican. I voted for bernie in the primaries against hillary.
2. The point of pewtrust article was to show both side of the argument. You know, pewtrust/pewsearch. Not biased yet you seems to twist words.

as I said, the debate isn't about the need to prove that people are actually competent and won't fuck up. it's about costs.

What are you talking about. That's my argument.

this only breeds incompetence. incompetence and corruption. friends hire friends and acquaintances. quality of work goes down. it gets just as harder to enter the field of work when there's a prerequisite to be somebody else's friend as when you need to pay a ginormous fee for a college and a license.

There's a difference between networking and nepotism.

Nice job on exposing my facts and logic and showing politics doesn't rule you thinking? (sarcasm)

[ajcrwl]

I ain't no republican. I voted for bernie in the primaries against hillary.

have a singular clap from me.

Nice job on exposing my facts and logic and showing politics doesn't rule you thinking? (sarcasm)

this doesn't mean anything, you know that right? stop being so edgy. politics can be a tool to turn your biases into legislations, or it can be a tool to bring some order into society. we can sit here and pretend to not care about it, meanwhile politicians are busy using it one way or another.

There's a difference between networking and nepotism.

okay, explain

as I said, the debate isn't about the need to prove that people are actually competent and won't fuck up. it's about costs.

What are you talking about. That's my argument.

let me rephrase that, "the debate isn't about the need to confirm that licenses are unnecessary as a proof of competence. it's about the costs of acquiring one".

[WriterLinXiaolong]

Again they are not saying its fact, from same article: 5.5, pg 285

We are not able to find any influence
of the relaxation of licensing statutes on blunt, overarching, but important measures of health outcomes.

Chapter 6, pg 287

However, there is a need for
additional analysis on more medical procedures and further work on the implications for patients’ quality of care before these results can become the focus of
new public policies.