• jasona.work - Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:25 PM

    TomThomson - Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:37 PM

    I'm not sure what fields are protected in the USA; I suspect that there will be quite a few that are protected for no good reason, because the article mentions at least one (cutting hair) where the need for a state license seems ludicrous.  Bar tender is maybe less so - a bar tender should know when to refuse to serve someone and be willing to do it; a state license seems a bit over the top, but maybe an approval statement by local police (signed by someone ranked lieutenant or higher after a very short interview) could reasonably be required.  A technician connecting equipment to high volume and pressure gas pipes probably needs to certified as knowing what he is doing, since if he gets it wrong he may kill people, and certainly medical people who prescribe controlled drugs need certification (although the number of drugs that can be obtained only with medical prescription should be very small - out of 16 drugs that between us my wife and I have to take to stay less than totally decrepit now that we're getting distinctly only 1 requires a medic's prescription in Spain but 14 require it in the UK which demonstrates how utterly stupid it is to requires a licence to authorise someone to take at least 13 of these things.

    But here's a question on bartender licensing for you...
    Why should it be the bartender or the bouncer or the hostess responsibility to stop serving someone?  When does it become the responsibility of the *individual* who has made the choice before even walking into the bar to get hammered?  OK, they're so wasted they can barely form a more coherent sentence than "gim' another" and at that point the bar staff could say "no," as part of a "we reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason."  But then your drunk guy wanders over to the bar that keeps serving.
    But, in all of that, *why* should the government at any level have any say at what point the bar stops serving?

    As Lynn pointed out, a large chunk of "licensing" is little more than a protection racket for already ensconced businesses.  While I strongly dislike the company, look at the trouble Uber keeps getting into, less because of the service the provide, as the fact that the existing taxi companies are getting whupped in the market.  Taxi companies pay small fortunes for "taxi medallions" provided by the city (IIRC, in New York a medallion can go for upwards of $1,000,000)

    Now, as to medical costs, I saw an interesting post earlier today by someone in the medical industry in the US...
    The amount of regulations that hospitals and Doctors have to deal with on a regular basis is immense.  Want to put in a new MRI machine?  It has to be approved by various regulators AND other hospitals in the area.  Requirements to keep certain levels of perishable emergency supplies on hand (this one I'm sort of on the pro-side, at least for things they could use before they expire so they aren't wasted,) the cluster-f**k that is Medicare / Medicaid (both gov run programs) billing (there's a reason Dr offices limit how many patients from those programs they'll take.)

    So, really, I think Lynn has the right of it, at least here in the US, we need LESS regulation, not more.

    Too bad I can't click Like more than once on both of these posts. 😉