Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[mawilson 2,133]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

[mRx 16]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Like Moody's and S&P? Yeah, that works extremely well.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Huh? Mawilson just showed you how that would be irrelevant. If they are paid more to overcome reality the corruption itself is what makes it profitable, more profitable than the genuine agencies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Huh? Mawilson just showed you how that would be irrelevant. If they are paid more to overcome reality the corruption itself is what makes it profitable, more profitable than the genuine agencies.

And there are actual, real world examples of this happening. AAA junk, anyone?

[mRx 16]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Like Moody's and S&P? Yeah, that works extremely well.

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

Moody's and S&P are protected from failure by government monopoly. Much of the SEC regulations serve to enforce this rating agency monopoly. Take a look for yourself.

With government in control, rest assured that only the most politically connected entities will exist to serve you; And when this unstable and inefficient system breaks down, the ignorant will continue to eat the anti-market rubbish fed to them by the talking heads, with their finger pointed in the wrong direction.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Like Moody's and S&P? Yeah, that works extremely well.

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

Moody's and S&P are protected from failure by government monopoly. Much of the SEC regulations serve to enforce this rating agency monopoly. Take a look for yourself.

With government in control, rest assured that only the most politically connected entities will exist to serve you; And when this unstable and inefficient system breaks down, the ignorant will continue to eat the anti-market rubbish fed to them by the talking heads, with their finger pointed in the wrong direction.

Yes, leave it to the AEI to set the record straight.

[mawilson 2,133]

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

The government is not doing its job of prosecuting these crooks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

The government is not doing its job of prosecuting these crooks.

Something seems fundamentally wrong with the concept of fee-for-rating.

[mRx 16]

From the OP:

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

This type of regulation is realizable across the board.

I can see how turning the accreditation agency system to the free market will work

wonders for the system. If someone doesn't like the rating that they paid one agency

for, they can take their business elsewhere and pay another agency to see if they get

a better rating... thus, the agencies that give health providers crappy ratings would

go out of business and those that give out good ratings would be highly profitable.

Not if you consider that competing rating agencies have reputations as well.

Like Moody's and S&P? Yeah, that works extremely well.

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

Moody's and S&P are protected from failure by government monopoly. Much of the SEC regulations serve to enforce this rating agency monopoly. Take a look for yourself.

With government in control, rest assured that only the most politically connected entities will exist to serve you; And when this unstable and inefficient system breaks down, the ignorant will continue to eat the anti-market rubbish fed to them by the talking heads, with their finger pointed in the wrong direction.

Yes, leave it to the AEI to set the record straight.

I see your blind partisanship holds it's ground.

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

The government is not doing its job of prosecuting these crooks.

Screw that. The market would punish them far worse than any dog and pony show prosecution the government conjures up.

[mRx 16]

Businesses aren't perfect. When they make mistakes, they're punished with losses. Moody's and S&P's errors seemed dire enough to kick them off the top. But they seem to be doing just fine. What gives?

The government is not doing its job of prosecuting these crooks.

Something seems fundamentally wrong with the concept of fee-for-rating.

How are they supposed to finance their operations?

Fee-for-rating is fundamentally sound. Look at Underwriters Laboratory. They're a fee-for-rating. And if they phuck up, I'm sure there's someone who would love to take their place.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I have to agree with all of Matt original threat topic. Cambodia health care is very low cost. Heck, the number 1 HIV and AID treatment medication is around 1 or 2 dollars per stack.

And, the Dentist is like 100 dollars to get crowns, cleaning, etc...

The eye doctor is like $10.

I could go on and on....

However, quality is at your own judgement. You cannot hold anyone responsible.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fee-for-rating is fundamentally sound. Look at Underwriters Laboratory. They're a fee-for-rating. And if they phuck up, I'm sure there's someone who would love to take their place.

Truth doesn't pay, Matt. If it did, we wouldn't see Extenze commercials running 24/7.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Fee-for-rating is fundamentally sound. Look at Underwriters Laboratory. They're a fee-for-rating. And if they phuck up, I'm sure there's someone who would love to take their place.

Truth doesn't pay, Matt. If it did, we wouldn't see Extenze commercials running 24/7.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Fee-for-rating is fundamentally sound. Look at Underwriters Laboratory. They're a fee-for-rating. And if they phuck up, I'm sure there's someone who would love to take their place.

Truth doesn't pay, Matt. If it did, we wouldn't see Extenze commercials running 24/7.

It worked for eric!