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 convenienceTo 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.
You are absolutely correct, but as I said in my first post
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.
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.
Well, I just used the article you linked to support your claim earlier.
And yet, when you read the article itself,
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?! 
"exposed" "facts and logic"
oh my
so, article is called
A License to Braid Hair? Critics Say State Licensing Rules Have Gone Too Far
haha, Mike Pence is on his bullshit
yeah, like precious irreplaceable HAIR BRAIDERS, lmao
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Mike Pence is on his bullshit. I ain't no republican. I voted for bernie in the primaries against hillary.
- 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.
What are you talking about. That's my argument.
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)
have a singular clap from me.
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.
okay, explain
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".
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.
[ Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 59 (May 2016)]
© 2016 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/2016/5902-0009$10.00
It's from this book
So... 
there is a need for additional analysis
Doesn't mean their findings aren't fact. It just means more data is required before the study can be more bullet proof. Like I said,
They are definitely saying
regulating and relaxing provisions for the occupational groups
involved in the delivery of health services can affect both wages and priceswe were not able to find any influence of these
changes in the regulatory climate on infant mortality rates or malpractice insurance rates as
indirect measures of the quality of the service provided. Relaxing regulations does not appear to
change the most serious adverse medical outcomes.
which supports my argument that licenses are political tools.
That's part of my argument. So I'm wondering if you know that.
Again, that's part of my argument. I don't understand what you're getting at? Well at least Andrew Yang agrees with me about relaxing licensing. Or is he too republican for you? Oh wait, he's a democrat 
Ok, so read carefully to what I write because all you've done so far was twist words and agree with me without even knowing it. Networking is when you know a someone for example a friend, who is competent and you know will do the job right, so you skip formality because you already found the right candidate, Nepotism is when you know someone for example a friend, who is incompetent but you hire anyways for no other reason then that person being your friend.The key difference is knowing competency. Just because a producer who is friends with steven spielberg hire spielberg instead of some qualified rando isn't nepotism. Sure the rando might be qualified, but the producer doesn't know that. spielberg might be the producers friend but spielberg has already proven himself.
I'm not a teacher, I don't have a degree in any educational studies either so you won't find me putting out any 'evidence' but this whole thing just made me 'fondly' remember my school days. Back then we had a wide variety of teachers and I remember about three people who I'd deem 'good teachers' while most were the alright kind and some were ... well, people who probably shouldn't teach.
So here's a bit of my experience (I should warn you that this is long but I have a hidden TL;DR at the end so just go look for that if you don't care about anybody's experience.):
- I had an English teacher that was said (nobody ever showed me their license so this is only by word of mouth) to have been working in some factory before and only did some course when they lacked teachers and managed to get into the school. It's partly thanks to this person that my English pronunciation is not up to par (trying to salvage it on my own now but it's hard if you've done it wrong for years) because they needed 3(!) years to point out there was a problem but they never offered any help on how to change that (even though we still had a year left with them). They also taught the whole class the definitely wrong pronunciation for some words which was luckily rectified two years later when we got into different courses and had a new teacher.
- I had a licensed teacher for some subject that incorporated economics, technical stuff and work-related matters. The person was a drunkard that would go and 'copy materials' only to come back without anything whatsoever and then went back to get it because he 'forgot'. Nobody wanted to get even a few steps close to them because you couldn't take the smell.
- I had a licensed teacher who managed to fail their exam twice (as he very proudly told us) but managed to get through on the third attempt. Never learned anything until a to-be teacher currently doing their internship at our school took over the course for two years. Sadly, the person was unable to salvage the situation especially since we got the old teacher back in our last year.
Btw that guy was highly unprofessional. If you were a girl and showed some cleavage you easily got full marks in his course and I had the displeasure of hearing stuff like 'A pretty girl like you should do something in the media' when casually talking about what I intended to do after school. He also had no concept of personal space and even if you shifted away from him in a conversation because you were very uncomfortable with him standing so close, he would just follow you around the room.
- In regard to the internship there's another funny story: The one who tried hard to make up for what that old teacher more or less ruined got an average grade when her course was graded later on. Another internship-person we had at the same time for our history course and who was unable to control the class (people were playing bingo, surfing on the net, talking so loud that you could hardly hear the teacher talk) and was unable to answer anybody's questions (he'd start and then drop off somewhere in the middle) got through it with the highest grade.
Oh, this guy was also the person that prompted one of my classmates to ask the director (who was our history teacher in the next year) why we weren't talking about WWI at all and he just wanted to do WWII with us. Turns out the internship-guy had managed to talk about the stuff before WWI for so long that we missed an entire semester (!) of stuff we should have known. (Which made quite a few people panic because history had an oral exam for several people at the end of school and if you miss that much it's very hard to make up for it.)
- There was also our teacher for political education. He had studied politics but didn't have a teacher's degree. He certainly knew a lot about politics. Sadly, I don't. When we were voting for the Europeen Parliament this year, I had to effing google what it was about and how I was supposed to vote for it. The only thing I actually remember is something about 'Pareto' and some principle where an exchange is supposed to be beneficial to both sides?
These were my worst experiences with teachers I guess. As for the three I'd deem 'good teachers'? Well, two of them were licensed. They taught us what they were supposed to teach us, managed to do some extra stuff, showed actual interest in their students (aka you could always come to them and ask stuff if you didn't know, even if it wasn't about the subject) and one of them even managed to inspire me personally for the following years so that I didn't give up when things didn't go well for me.
The last one wasn't licensed. He was our art teacher and I value him because we did some of the most interesting projects with him we ever did in art class. There was one problem though: He was completely unable to explain what the heck he wanted from us. He literally once told me to 'do nothing' for a project and I didn't understand. I finally did whatever I felt like because at that point, I felt I could only go wrong anyway and his final evaluation after looking at the thing was 'Oh. I actually thought this wouldn't work.' Well, I do expect of my teacher to be able to explain the effing tasks and tell me if he thinks stuff goes wrong because my fucking final mark depends on his course too. I'd deem everything else unfair. So even though his ideas were interesting - and his personality was great - these two things are why I'd say he's a 'good teacher' - he was also kind of bad because he nearly ruined my grade (and that's a huge thing because one of the universities I wanted to apply to had a minimum grade you needed to reach).
Anyway, here probably comes the TL;DR from my experience: A license doesn't guarantee that a teacher will be a good teacher. (I don't think anybody here ever said that though?) But not having a degree doesn't guarantee anything.
From my perspective as a student, I'd still rather have teachers that are certified because at the very least, I'd know they went through some basic stuff and will know what they're supposed to teach us and when. Sure, there will be slip-ups but overall my trust in them will just be higher because I know they did something to get that license.
Oh, fun fact (not my experience though): There were some cases of teachers faking licenses and teaching for several years here in Germany. The students noticed because they didn't learn anything, reported it but (at least in the one case that I remember, the woman was teaching some religion and ethics-related stuff I think) the person in question moved away so the school didn't pursue the matter. The same happened with all subsequent schools where she went until one finally managed to get onto her case and reported her.
I think it's very interesting that the students notice. It just goes to show that just because somebody thinks they can teach something, it doesn't mean they really can. Children aren't stupid. If you're not qualified (regardless of whether you have a license or not), they'll catch onto that quite fast.