bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) (11/05/85)
> > >/* Written 3:06 pm Oct 30, 1985 by bmg@mck-csc in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >/* ---------- "Libertaria and info: why not now?" ---------- */ > >When I hear discussions about a libertarian society, I continually hear > >references to a vast information network which will provide information > >about any service at a reasonable price [reasonable having an upper limit > >of what I am currently paying in taxes]. [ I go one here (incorectly) about info not being available now for something like cars] [ I am then properly corrected on the subject.] The point I was trying to make is the cost of gaining such information is extremely high. Is it actually going to be cheaper to go out and access this sort of information every time it is to be needed than it is to have the information confirmed for every supplier. If this isn't clear, take the case of doctors. Is it cheaper for me to investigate a Large number of possible doctors and look into their history and get references and contact these references, etc. than it is for me to support a lisensing board which specifies a certain minimum requirements and gives me some sort of recourse when these minimums are not met? Bernie Gunther
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (11/07/85)
> >The point I was trying to make is the cost of gaining such information >is extremely high. Is it actually going to be cheaper to go out and access >this sort of information every time it is to be needed than it is to >have the information confirmed for every supplier. > >If this isn't clear, take the case of doctors. Is it cheaper for me to >investigate a Large number of possible doctors and look into their history >and get references and contact these references, etc. than it is for >me to support a lisensing board which specifies a certain minimum >requirements and gives me some sort of recourse when these minimums are >not met? > >Bernie Gunther I expect that it will be cheaper for you to buy a report from the Doctor Investigating Cooperative. Moreover, if they collect lots of facts about doctors you could probably get a doctor who is more suited to yourself. Instead of just a ``passed these minimum standards'' you could also specify that you want your doctor to pass other standards in courtesy, promptness and compassion which are not currently on the medical exams... -- Help beautify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits. Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/19/85)
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