Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't see how the absence of licensure would prevent courts from issuing restrictions on individuals found guilty of criminal misconduct." That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. "The government requiring a conviction in court before restricting someone's right to free association is how it should be." That is one way to look at it, yet is is not how the legal system works today.…
>>That might cover fraud, but that doesn't cover incompetence or other harm. If someone acts non-fradulently, and honestly conveys their lack of experience, their lack of competency in carrying out the service is no one's fault than the consumer. >>The courts have determined that licensure is a lawful restriction on association. I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is. >>It may have a…
You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc.
"But the remaining ~92% of healthcare spending is made through non-time-sensitive decisions where an individual has plenty of to assess the market options."
Just because it's non-emergency does not mean the person is capable if choosing. You have people who are mentally ill and incapacitated who are treated in settings other than the ER. The highest spending happens at the end of life stage.
"I'm arguing this legal framework, not saying that's how it currently is."
Do you actually have more details for how that framework would work? So far all I'm hearing is that we should nor have licenses for medical professionals. How does that work with medical professionals powers to suspend drivers licenses, commit people, help in emergencies (good samaritan laws), etc. How does this affect malpractice insurance and torts, especially if you're saying that any incompetence can simply be stated by the provider to avoid court intervention? How would this system work in relation to controlled substances and expensive equiptment maintenance/procurement? How are the safety programs legally enforceable or logically possible without training? We already see that VEARS has terrible quality data. There are many adverse events that go unreported, especially by the lower trained PAs/NPs (my experiences).
"Just as people delegate this analysis to a cadre of politicians in the current monopolistic system, people would be able to delegate analysis to reputable experts in a free market."
You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. There are numerous providers competing with each other. There's simply a training/licensure requirement. How are reputable experts foing to be any different than the current system? My guess is that they will create their own license system and force people through that too. Insurances, which cover the vast majority, will still require licenses to ensure that people aren't getting care that will be ineffective and cost them even more. This includes stuff like Medicare and Medicaid that the government controls.
Do you have a thesis paper or something that we can see? We really need more information about what exactly you are proposing beyond 'remove licenses, free market will work', how that will affect the numerous aspects of the system as well as it's integration with other systems, and what research there is to support it.