Re: Licensing

This is an interesting point you bring up, Keith.

One of the areas of interest to me are to practical applications. Our work with Attention has been to explore licensing based on that framework….one advantage to this would be that it would benefit the person being certified across multiple areas of practice.

i'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this more.  Do you know of anyone with a background in setting up systems like this?

Again, creating the context for adaption is a key part of what would make something like this work so no surprise that it leads me back to Cultural Fusion “art as philosophy”….this idea is actually what brought the Fusion Enlightenment idea into being…i created something i call the Fusion Enlightenment Group that will work to develop and implement that side of things.

Anyone that is passionate about building something like this, please contact me :-)

Re: Licensing

We'll have to discuss alternative ways of organizing.  Here's an excellent article I feel says it all …

The Case against Medical Licensing
For the first 120 years of our history, America had, essentially, a free-market health-care system. There were few licensing laws or other barriers to entry into the healing arts. A variety of practitioners offered services, including herbalists, nature-care therapists, hydrotherapists, osteopaths, allopaths and homeopaths. There was a variety of healing schools and clinics. During this time, America was among the healthiest nations, with the lowest infant mortality rate in the world. (Now we are tied for 19th among 19 developed nations.) Costs were not a problem because open competition kept prices down. Low costs made health care widely accessible. Laws against fraud and negligence protected the consumer.

Efforts to change the situation began as early as 1847. In this year, the American Medical Association (AMA) was formed to protect the interests of one group of doctors-the drug healers, or allopaths. This group, by the way, at times did more harm than good with their mercury, arsenic, leaches and other crude methods. One of the AMA's goals was to improve the income of its members. The best way to do this was to limit the supply of doctors.

The AMA's efforts culminated in 1910, when Abraham Flexner, a former school director who was not a physician, was commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to evaluate medical schools. He was the brother of Simon Flexner, head of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Working closely with the AMA, he completed a survey of medical schools that was practically a carbon copy of a report the AMA had done several years before. The report found most schools to be “substandard.”

Mr. Flexner and his friends at the Carnegie Foundation, Rockefeller Institute and the AMA convinced Congress that to “improve” health care, most healing schools should be closed. They also recommended licensing of doctors and hospitals as well as governmental subsidies to drug-medicine schools and research. These measures were all adopted by Congress between 1910 and 1920. The number of healing schools fell from 131 in 1910 to 69 in 1944. The closings meant many fewer physicians were trained. Not surprisingly, only the drug-medicine schools survived. The other healing schools were either shut down or failed because their graduates could no longer get a license. The situation remains the same today, except that several alternative groups, including chiropractors and naturopaths, have fought back by the passage of their own licensing laws in many states.

Problems with licensing can be divided into several groups:

Philosophical and political objections

o Licensing changes the profession of healing from a citizen's sovereign right to contract with another to a state privilege. This greatly expands the power of the state and reduces the sovereignty of the individual. Also, the state is permitted to intrude deeply into one of the most intimate contracts-that between the physician and patient.

o Medical-practice laws in most states make it a criminal offense to “diagnose, prescribe, or treat anything, mental or physical, real or imaginary” (quoted from the Arizona medical practice act). These laws needlessly criminalize thousands of well-intentioned individuals who have done no harm to anyone. Heavy-handed tactics, including daylight raids by SWAT teams, have been used to enforce licensing laws. Also, the laws are so vague that enforcement is often arbitrary and based on personal antagonism, vindictiveness, or envy rather than clear legal guidelines.

o Licensing boards have police power, but are made up only of members of the same profession. Ordinary citizens have little or no representation, but must abide by decisions of the licensing board.

o Licensing is inextricably involved with the welfare state. For example, Medicare will only reimburse licensed practitioners. In Arizona, registered dietitians fought hard to become licensed, not because of any public need, but so that they could receive government insurance reimbursement. Medical licenses also serve as “tickets of entry” for many government research jobs, grants and fellowships. Medical licensing is, in fact, an integral part of an arbitrary system of forced wealth redistribution.

Economic objections

o Licensing places a barrier between the buyers and sellers of health services. This restriction of trade reduces the supply of services. Reducing the supply of health services increases the cost of services.

o Expensive schooling, internships, exam fees and licensing fees raise the cost of entry into the profession. These costs are passed on to the consumers of health services, raising prices.

o Licensing reduces competition among practitioners, resulting in higher prices and reduced quality of care.

o Licensing reduces innovation by specifying what is “approved” practice. Reduced innovation raises costs and lowers the quality of services.

Medical objections

o Licensing reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the healing arts. Healing is a gift and an art. Many gifted individuals cannot afford, or for other reasons are not able to enter and complete, the six to twelve years of schooling necessary to obtain a medical license. Licensing deprives the population of the skill and art of these individuals.

o Licensing blocks innovation and the practice of alternative methods of healing.

o A licensed physician is no longer responsible only to the patient. His loyalty is divided between satisfying the patient and satisfying his licensing board.

Social objections

o Licensing gives the consumer of health care a false sense of security in his physician that can lead to false and unfulfilled expectations. This impairs the doctor-patient relationship and contributes to dependency and, later, anger and resentment. The present malpractice crisis is in part due to excessively high expectations of the public, generated in part by licensing of physicians.

o Licensing discriminates against the poor, who have more difficulty meeting educational and other requirements for licensure. Licensing has also been used to keep minorities and women out of the healing professions.

Without licensing, private certifying agencies would spring up to replace state licensure. Many such groups already exist. One could still choose an AMA-approved, board-certified physician. But one could also choose among a variety of alternative practitioners who are not permitted to practice at present. The public would be better protected from fraud and malpractice because no physician would be shielded by his license. Physicians would be directly accountable to their patients. Health care would operate in a manner similar to car care. There would be many levels and types of care available. Not everyone enjoys the same level of car care, but most people receive care, innovations are permitted, and competition keeps prices in check.

The negative effects of licensing include higher prices, reduced innovation, reduced access to care, restriction of the right to contract, and much poorer health of our population. Licensing also is an integral part of the welfare state whose principles are alien to our American way of life. America once did very well in the area of health care without medical licensing. It is time to move toward our previously successful experiment with a free-market system of health care.

Dr. Wilson has a medical degree and works as a health consultant and writer in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Source

Re: Licensing

Good article! Thanks for sharing it, Keith.

Re: Licensing

The structuring is already in the article, BTW.

”Without licensing, private certifying agencies would spring up to replace state licensure. Many such groups already exist. One could still choose an AMA-approved, board-certified physician. But one could also choose among a variety of alternative practitioners who are not permitted to practice at present. The public would be better protected from fraud and malpractice because no physician would be shielded by his license. Physicians would be directly accountable to their patients. Health care would operate in a manner similar to car care. There would be many levels and types of care available. Not everyone enjoys the same level of car care, but most people receive care, innovations are permitted, and competition keeps prices in check.”

Re: Licensing

Happy to certify, don't like licensing. Big fan of word of mouth. Licensing is usually run by the graveyard of old practitioners or the practitioners that have lost interest or forgot why they started or didn't make enough money out of the practice or poor practitioners who think too much etc etc.

This idea, when we get it sorted, should be able to be used across the board in all professions.

Re: Licensing

And please note this is coming from at least two who are or are soon to be two licensed professionals.  One would think those “inside” this cushy little system would want to maintain it.  Far from it.  We are the one's who can more clearly “see” the issues.

This is one of the greatest hindrances in the US to quality healthcare.

Re: Licensing

Licensing is a way for each state to bilk more money outta peeps. So there, I said it! LOL

I'm a licensed Sign Language interpreter. Big F'n deal. It just means I have to have National  certification and I filled out a form for the state of Illinois. There are still interpreters that have no skills but some how passed a test and got licensed. The consumer STILL has to 'beware'. Just like any profession.

I also have to be licensed to do massage therapy in the state of Illinois, but my DH who is an electrician doesn't! Go figure! LOL  I think it should be the other way around! ;)

But because I love massage and what it does for the human body and want to practice, what choice do I have? I have to do what big brother tells me to do. right?

Re: Licensing

The funny thing is that licensing only requires that you pass a minimum competency test, or series of tests.  These tests are given and supported by the organizations that support the specific type, in this case, healing arts or medical care.  By requiring these tests it in fact gives those who have passed these tests and given license's certain responsibilities covered by our legal system.  (I am currently in the system of taking these tests) and at times I am frustrated with the system.

But I believe that anyone can be a healer, and with the liberal religious laws that gives us our freedoms the ability to practice numerous kinds of healing arts under the pretense of religion opens a huge door to allow the exploration of ones talents.

This being said, you still cannot call you self a certain type of healer, unless you have passed these test. 
So go forth and heal.

As a healer you are mostly a facilitator, because true healing can really only come from down and in, inside and out.

Peace Love and Understanding.

Josh

Re: Licensing

Ah! Mr. Josh,

But that is the ruse.  That's how the bill is sold.  Licensing may keep incompetent folks from practicing, but it goes much further by … limiting the numbers given licenses, therefore keeping fees for service artificially high due to increased demand, control via ethics board such that innovation is quashed, limiting competition, and on and on.

I agree completely with the article posted.  There are a number of ways to certify competence without licensing. 

I went through what you're going through now.  Can you give me any reason why the college you're attending now can't verify your competency? 

You are correct about healing in general.  Many are born with the gift.

Re: Licensing

//// thanks keith & josh

I am an ITEC licenced / certified masseur, done Tui-Na, Acupressure courses & practice Tai-Chi
and will not 'sell' healing  until I get much more knowledge…And settle down.And and…etc..
There are only a few healers out there …. the rest are as useful as vague doctors.

As for the exams … well I believe you need 10 diplomas to start, like josh said the Exams are so easy to pass ! …


ºjlz

Re: Licensing

ohhh,
Vague doctors,  currently the reductionist view of the body and the healing capasity is limiting the expression of health.  The holographic nature of the human  body and its ability to adapt, utilizing a evolved tensegrity geometry, allows any one experience not able to be adapted to to be stored in every cell of the body.  Even massage therapist, medical doctors, PT's, acupuncturist, chiropractors, and yoga teachers can have this limited view.

Regardless of the tests being given, or in fact those who pass the tests, really gives you no right, to fully access someones system for healing, unless you have a clear intent.  This comes with absolute certainty that you are delivering a helpful input into the system as a whole.  A residency of at least three years after you graduate is helpful also.  And let me clarify residency is a new 21st centruy dialect, even though is permeates all eastern teacher student relationship.  Yu need to have a mentor and a teacher even after you get you licence, because true learning really comes after school and never really stops.

Why can't the school I am attending verify my license?  I really wish they could  Hmmm I really don't have a great answer to why or how to change the current paradigm.  I guess there would be a confict of interests if this were to happen with alsmost cookie cutter doctors graduating.  At least in my school, the teachers and staff are really involved and want everyone to get a license.  I think if the schools had the ability they would have to work pretty hard to be fair and partial.  I really thought when I was posting to this thread that I would have a anwer, but Now I am more perplexed.  But you are correct the fee are extrememly INflated and almost unfair.  Any wrong move during testing can further elimate you from any further exams and waste the 100,000 you just paid for school.  Now I am rambling.  There is still no insurance of compentency either way.

Your is Wellbeing and Truthfulness

Josh

Re: Licensing

hi josh

 Im not sure which country you reside, but the principle is the same through-out the semi-civilised Western nations …haha…
 I comprehend your stand point. For you, I would rekon a spiritual/educational
 journey to maybe Tibet or Thailand.

My friend who is a practicing healer, with guru, and 10 years field experience with little economic care, refered me to http://universal-tao.com/retreat/index.html  look around the site.. it could be the one. .. Im also considering going .

peace lite
ºjlz