By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., Goldwater Institute
After Hurricane Isaac blew through Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal temporarily suspended licensing rules to allow EMTs to travel from other states and care for Louisianans. Similarly, after hurricanes ravaged Florida in 2004, then-Gov. Jeb Bush sought to ease licensing rules for roofers.
Professional licensing supposedly protects vulnerable people from the unscrupulous by putting government between us and those we would hire for services like plumbing and medicine. Yet, when unforeseen events like hurricanes make people even more vulnerable, authorities often ease or suspend licensing rules. These examples bear testimony to the fact that professional licensing hurts consumers of licensed professional services. When free enterprise prevails and demand rises, more individuals offer their services, even moving across states if necessary. Licensing prevents this, and leads to higher prices, lost opportunities, lives unsaved, and roofs unrepaired.
At a time when health care costs have risen faster than general inflation for decades, licensing laws prevent more people from practicing all aspects of medicine. A proposed law to allow out-of-state doctors to administer aid temporarily at a free clinic in Arizona was actively opposed by licensing advocates. Their offered “compromises” always consisted of red tape that would have prevented caring out-of-state doctors from bothering to come here.
Despite the heavy cost of licensing, every legislative session more professions seek to be licensed. Legislators should resist these efforts. Instead, if they want Arizona to be a land of opportunity, legislators should make private certification a more viable alternative to licensing and start repealing the licensing laws we already have on the books.
Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.
Learn more:
Goldwater Institute: Six Reforms to Occupational Licensing Laws
National Roofing Contractors Association: Florida roofing licensing laws complicate reroofing effort
“At a time when health care costs have risen faster than general inflation for decades, licensing laws prevent more people from practicing all aspects of medicine.”
What a very California left wing liberal point of view, Dr. Schlomach!
“Abortionists don’t need a doctor’s license: bill rammed through California Senate”
“by Kathleen Gilbert
Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:38 EST”
“SACRAMENTO, September 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The California Senate last week rammed through a bill allowing abortionists to practice without a doctor’s license, which now awaits approval from Governor Jerry Brown.”
“Senate Bill 623, introduced by Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, extends a program run by the University of California at San Francisco, in which nurse practitioners, midwives, and doctors’ assistants are trained to perform abortions without any further training in medicine. Kehoe argues the bill is necessary because there aren’t enough doctors performing abortions in California.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionists-dont-need-a-doctors-license-bill-rammed-through-california-sen
California is right in step with Dr. Schlomach’s idea of letting more people practice all aspects of medicine. Or is Dr. Schlomach right in step with the California left wing liberals?
“Similarly, after hurricanes ravaged Florida in 2004, then-Gov. Jeb Bush sought to ease licensing rules for roofers.”
“Police frequently warn the elderly about home-improvement scams operated by a few Irish Travelers. Wandering contractors have been known to charge gullible customers thousands for “sealants” that are nothing more than watered-down lubricant; the con artists quickly leave town once the check is cashed.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/09/what_is_an_irish_traveler.html
“Detectives: Five ‘Travelers’ arrested in undercover roofing scam investigation”
“Posted: 01/13/2012
By: WFTS Staff”
“POLK COUNTY, FL – The Polk County Sheriff’s Office arrested five people in an undercover operation aimed at catching traveling scam artists.”
“All of the suspects arrested are members of a nomadic community frequently referred to as Travelers, authorities said.”
“A senior citizen, working with detectives, posed as a woman concerned about her roof. Several businesses, described by investigators as ‘Traveler’ businesses, were contacted for estimates on Wednesday.”
“Prior to the investigation, a credible roofing contractor found that the woman’s roof did not need repairs.”
“The sheriff’s office provided the media with the following account of what happened next:”
“Two men from Rafferty Roofing told the woman her roof needed repair. Bartholomew and Patrick Rafferty offered to fix it for $975. They also provided a fraudulent insurance document. They were arrested on several charges, including exploitation of the elderly, burglary and grand theft.”
“Later, two men, Alexander Parker and Charles Evans, offered to fix the woman’s roof for $600. Parker told the woman there were numerous nails “popping up” and the areas around the vents were dry-rotted. He also told her there was a large area of damage to the roof. Both men were arrested.”
“Detectives also obtained a warrant for a 17-year-old after he solicited an elderly man in Lake Alfred about doing unneeded roof work at his residence. The teen dumped tar on the roof and poured rocks on top of it. He charged the victim $600 for this work.”
“The teen then told the victim he needed more money so he could buy more materials. He was located at the KAO campground on Frontage Road and was arrested Thursday.”
“Your best option is not to do business with any traveling soliciting contractor. Contact local, trusted construction companies and ask for references for honest local contractors.”
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_polk/detectives-five-travelers-arrested-in-undercover-roofing-scam-investigation
You aren’t a lobbyist for the Irish Travelers, are you, Dr. Schlomach?
CA, on a prior issue: partial answer to your question: “And the owner is…? Also, has the ownership changed hands since one or two years ago?” http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/09/01/justice-department-exonerates-arpaio-thomas-on-prosecution-of-county-supervisors-and-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-879251 is here http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/02/27/welcome-to-the-new-sonoran-alliance/ and here http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/08/27/sonoran-alliance-seeking-conservative-investors/. SA may have changed hands or has more hands involved. In any event, don’t see anything that would indicate a profit being made beyond fixed overhead.
CA – dead on about Schlomach.
Schlomach “””Ph.D.””” perhaps you should consider a tuition refund, seems they forgot to program you with ‘sound processing skills.’
Isn’t obtaining a Ph.D. sort of licensing in itself? A shingle, a certification, an acknowledgment of competency to practice or perform certain duties…… functions?
Remember your testimony Bryon: “01:48:15 Mr. Schlomach said he researched (in depth – was it) this subject of bidding out but failed to mention what City of Phoenix Government Relations Rep. Karen Peters (time mark 01:54:15) referenced that the City of Phoenix did 30 years ago. Schlomach mentioned Sandy Springs, Georgia as an example, what he failed to mention was that Sandy Springs was just a rural county area with an expanding population that were victims of outrageous fees for services in a state that didn’t allow areas to incorporate. They incorporated when state laws were finally changed and had a very limited time to get up and running where their only option was outsourcing from the start in HAVING NOTHING. Check out Sandy Springs population after the 2010 census and ask yourself, is comparing Phoenix to Sandy Springs appropriate. Sal DiCiccio and his cohorts think so. Schlomach, you get an F- due to the lack of performance and misleading bias statements.” You can find the link to the video Ph.D., testimony here http://patriothq.com/2011/03/28/sal-diciccio-frank-antenori-sb1322-big-brother-government
Byron, it does hurt when the two examples you cite to support your argument were in response to natural disaster emergencies, but more so both still required credentialing akin to “LICENSING” and were short term measures.
Schlomach, we have enough issues with deceit by government oversight entities where you want to turn the public loose with it: who is going to watch these “providers of services” from out of state (or in state)? A private what have you that certifies – who is going to provide oversight OF THAT? What gives with creating more layers that drives the cost up to the end user?
Hi ‘ya, JPD!
Oh, thanks for the followup on the SA website. Didn’t intend for you to do a bunch of research. Wasn’t looking for something sinister. Just having some fun with it.
JPD wrote: “CA – dead on about Schlomach.” Thanks, JPD! You too make excellent points!
I needed a new roof. A couple of guys came by, noticing that the roof needed to be replaced, and pitched me on having them do the job. They had a heavy-weight, glossy, muti-color business card with their ROC contractor’s license number on it. Being a conservative Republican, LOL, I actually checked with the Registrar of Contractors. Surpise, surprise!
They DID have several ROC licenses BUT not the class of license which covers residential roofing! What does that mean?
According to the ROC, you can have anyone replace your roof. There is no law against using a non-licensed person or persons. However, if they don’t have the appropriate class of ROC license for the work, you’re on your own if there is a problem! You don’t have the office of the ROC to go to bat for you and to use their proceedures to help you get equitable resolution! You would have to hire an attorney and sue, if the roofer refused to voluntarily make things right!
It’s the old costs/benefits story. Are the benefits of licensing worth the costs? IMHO, the benefits are well worth the costs. In the case of roofing, I would much prefer to file a complaint with the ROC than to hire an attorney! Aside from that, you can use the ROC website to check on the history and status of any licensed contractor BEFORE you hire them to do work for you. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!”
When it comes to people in the health care industry, someone who has a license to lose has a huge incentive to keep that “work permit” by doing things as they should. Most health care licenses require education, training, continuing education and certification/re-certification to in order to legally perfom specific proceedures. Working as a Nursing Assistant, for example, didn’t initially require certification. Now it does. That was implemented to protect the safety of the public. So those looking to increase the safety of the public are actually seeking to implement more licensure and certification requirements.
Of course, California doesn’t care much about how unborn children are killed as long as they are killed. So, they are just fine with having those who are not physicians performing abortions, safety of the public be damned!
From my perspective, Dr. Schlomach seems to be preaching a form of anarchy. One has to wonder why he chose roofing and health care as examples, since those are areas where consumers can be and have been burned big time. That is why licensing, certifications and restrictions came into being in the first place!
CA and JPD, you are big government “conservatives.” Byron makes no effort to conceal that he is a libertarian. He works for the Goldwater Institute which is a libertarian think tank more aligned with the CATO Institute than the Heritage Foundation with respect to policy perspectives.
JPD, you miss the point by mocking a Ph. D. as a form a licensing to try to undercut Byron’s opposition to licensing. Byron opposes most business licensing by the government, but he has no objection at all to privately issued licenses and certifications.
CA, bringing the issue of abortion to this discussion is a red herring. The fundamental issue with abortion is whether it should be legal or not and under what circumstances. The issue of who performs abortions is a peripheral issue. Of course, restricting who can perform abortions has the effect of limiting and/or raising the cost of abortions, but it is not germane to the general question of licensing. If it were, you could make a case that women who are pregnant should have their drivers licenses suspended to help prevent them from going to an abortion clinic.
Physicians already have privately run medical boards that certify them. These boards could take on many of the roles of government regulatory bodies. There could be several boards competing for certification business which would help to keep all of the boards honest and competitively priced.
For roofers, there are private organizations like the BBB as well as simply checking references.
For both physicians and roofers, there are other private organizations like Angie’s List that can provide evaluations and/or referrals. There are organizations like Consumers Union which cover many expensive items such as automobiles.
Putting licensing in the hands of the government limits freedom of choice for both professionals and their potential customers in the name of protecting the customers. Why should we assume that a government agency with a legally enforced monopoly on certification will protect the interests of consumers better than private organizations? The private organizations need to maintain their reputations in order to have their certifications have any value at all and are not protected by a government monopoly on certification.
If consumers are too stupid to check evaluatons, references, and certifications without a government regulatory body, then they are probably too stupid to vote for a government because they want to elect rulers rather than representatives for a limited government. If the regulation is worthwhile, it will probably be supported without govenment mandates or financing because consumers will pay for it. Underwriters Laboratory and Angie’s List are evidence of that.
Also, government regulation can be used to limit competition which raises costs for consumers and to prevent innovation which prevents consumers from benefiting from new products, higher quality, and lower costs. For example, the FDA drug regulations make drugs more expensive and delay their introduction to patients who can benefit from them. Although some dangerous drugs are prevented from reaching patients, it is more common for patients to be hurt because treatments that could be helpful are delayed or denied. Drug companies (and their insurance companies), after all, are not trying to put out bad drugs that will result in ruinous lawsuits and damages reputations. Physicians (licensed or not) will not be willing to put their reputations on the line by prescribing unreliable drugs and Drug Stores will not be interested in dispensing drugs that will hurt their reputation.
Byron’s points are legitimate and the arguments presented in these comments against them are ridiculous.
Hello, Hunter!
Permit me to offer a rebuttal to your arguments.
Hunter wrote: “CA and JPD, you are big government “conservatives.” That’s your subjective opinion, of course. I am a conservative without any quotation marks or qualifiers.
Hunter wrote: “CA, bringing the issue of abortion to this discussion is a red herring.” No fish here at all, Hunter. Dr. Schlomach wrote: “At a time when health care costs have risen faster than general inflation for decades, licensing laws prevent more people from practicing all aspects of medicine.” In California, the liberal Democrats are seeking to enact law which would allow those who are not physicians to perform abortions. That fits with Dr. Schlomach’s idea of not preventing more people from practicing all aspects of medicine becaue of licensure requirements. The point is twofold: this represents a downgrading of the required level of training and knowledge required to legally perform abortion and it shows how Dr. Schlomach’s idea can be applied in a way which furthers something opposed by conservatives.
Hunter wrote: “Physicians already have privately run medical boards that certify them. These boards could take on many of the roles of government regulatory bodies. There could be several boards competing for certification business which would help to keep all of the boards honest and competitively priced.”
Let’s not confuse certification with licensure, Hunter. One may be certified in a specialty but one must be licensed simply to practice medicine in any form at any level. Secondly, I don’t see how competition among certifying organizations would help to keep them honest. Lastly, competitive pricing is theoretical. The question then arises as to whether attempts to be more competitively priced could result in lower quality.
Hunter wrote: “For roofers, there are private organizations like the BBB as well as simply checking references.” That’s fine for a background check but the BBB doesn’t have “teeth” like the Registrar of Contractors does in the event of a problem which needs to be addressed.
Hunter wrote: “For both physicians and roofers, there are other private organizations like Angie’s List that can provide evaluations and/or referrals. There are organizations like Consumers Union which cover many expensive items such as automobiles.” Again, Hunter, that’s fine for doing a check but really doesn’t offer anything to address problems which arise. There are no consequences or remedies provided by those entities.
Hunter wrote: “Putting licensing in the hands of the government limits freedom of choice for both professionals and their potential customers in the name of protecting the customers.” And the problem with that is what? Simply being an American citizen limits choices. 18 year old men must register with the Selective Service System and could be drafted in time of war in the name of protecting the country. Some limits on freedom of choice are required to have a society and a nation.
Hunter wrote: “Why should we assume that a government agency with a legally enforced monopoly on certification will protect the interests of consumers better than private organizations?” Let’s turn the question around. Why should we assume that a private organization is going to protect the interests of consumers better than a government agency?
Hunter wrote: “If consumers are too stupid to check evaluatons, references, and certifications without a government regulatory body…” It’s not simply a question of checking evaluations. references and certifications, Hunter. It’s a question of what recourse consumers have when there’s a problem. Are you seeking to line the pockets of attorneys by fostering lawsuits?
Hunter wrote: “Also, government regulation can be used to limit competition which raises costs for consumers and to prevent innovation which prevents consumers from benefiting from new products, higher quality, and lower costs. For example, the FDA drug regulations make drugs more expensive and delay their introduction to patients who can benefit from them. Although some dangerous drugs are prevented from reaching patients, it is more common for patients to be hurt because treatments that could be helpful are delayed or denied. Drug companies (and their insurance companies), after all, are not trying to put out bad drugs that will result in ruinous lawsuits and damages reputations. Physicians (licensed or not) will not be willing to put their reputations on the line by prescribing unreliable drugs and Drug Stores will not be interested in dispensing drugs that will hurt their reputation.”
Let’s take this piece by piece.
Government regulations are not inherently good or evil. It depends upon the regulation. Bad regulations bring about bad outcomes. Good regulations bring about good outcomes.
I would like to see your evidence in support of the statement that it is more common for patients to be hurt by treatments delayed or denied due to regulations than it is for them to be protected from dangerous drugs. Do you have any such supporting evidence?
The fact that drug companies are not trying to put out bad drugs is irrelevant. Sometimes they do put out bad drugs and sometimes they hide the fact that they know the drugs are bad. That is where profits and financial considerations enter the picture.
Sometimes physicians prescribe and drug stores provide medications that are harmful because the pharmaceutical company deliberately hid data showing that the drug is harmful.
Hunter wrote: “Byron’s points are legitimate and the arguments presented in these comments against them are ridiculous.” I assert the contrary. Dr. Schlomach’s comments are ridiculous and the arguments presented against them in these comments are legitimate.
The reason your arguments fail, Hunter, is that your assumptions are unsound. You are basing your arguments on the ideas that the private sector is always better than government, that less regulation is always better than more regulation, that freedom of choice is the most important thing and that competition always lowers costs. None of those can be proven to be true. It’s an ideological position rather than a practical one.
I believe that there are many areas where there is too much regulation. I believe that there are many areas where the private sector can do better than does the government. I believe that more freedom of choice is generally a good thing but that, in order to have a healthy and functional society and country, there are times when we need to sacrifice personal choices for the sake of something bigger. I believe that competition can lower costs but it has not always proven to do so. Each situation must be considered on a case by case basis. I don’t think we can have rigid rules, applied across the board, in every instance, and have an optimal outcome.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this subject. You make as good a case as I think can be made for your point of view. I see this sort of debate on issues as useful and valuable. Our nation was founded in debate and those debates continue to this day. Such debate is the sign of a free and relatively healthy nation. It’s when no debate is permitted, or when people are no longer interested in thinking about and debating issues, that we are in trouble.
Hunter, me a “big government “conservative.””? You mean conservative, like the republicans tout themselves to be?
Actually I despise the word ‘conservative’ as being over used with no substance or relevance today; it’s like the boy who cried wolf, it means squat other than to the shallow minded. Now if you called me a constitutional conservative libertarian you would be on the right track.
So Ph.D. shingle (aka EMT roofer) Schlomach cites 2 examples of suspension of licensing rules, one in 2004 and the other done in 2010 as well as 2012. If the Ph.D. had done prudent research he could’ve cited the twofer rather than represent it as one incident.
http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/2010%20BJ%209%20EO%20Oil%20Spill%20Temporary%20EMTs.pdf
http://clear.blogs.com/clear/2012/09/florida-regulator-accounting-institute-unveil-video-contest-addressing-unlicensed-practice.html
http://clear.blogs.com/clear/2012/08/doctors-call-for-overturn-of-federal-trade-commission-ruling-citing-risk-to-state-regulation-of-medi.html
Tell me more about this Goldwater Institute; the one Jeff McFakeCard was director of for two years? I thought McFlake was a ‘rock solid’ conservative, or does conservative mean something different today? Example, Club For Growth(CFG), Chris Chocola continues to carry the banner that illegal immigration, or should we say foreign invasion, is a social issue, “NOT A FISCAL ISSUE” note quotations with emphasis.
So conservative means amnesty seeing CFG thinks and rates(scores) build the dang fence, election time hard shift to the right McMcCain LITE Jeffery Lane Flake “100% Conservative.”
Here is another prime “conservative” organization, FreedomWorks, Dick Army, Jim DeMint, they also support the FOREIGN INVASION of our country from the south.
http://patriothq.com/2012/06/10/endorsements-jeff-flake-for-u-s-senate-jeffflake-com-you-too-can-endorse-amnesty-mcflake
Please spare me the McFake Earmark fallacy, I’ll have to get my rope, tar and feather kit out.
Surely conservative doesn’t mean constitutional seeing how THEY the elected ones, and THEM the wannabe elected ones shy away from the word and acting….. constitutional. It’s almost like a creed: obviously they are “with knowledge” so wouldn’t with knowledge provide standing for misfeasance, therefore voiding their indemnification. Or should we get out the rope and drag them to the city square light pole and tar and feather their seditious butt’s and leave them for display?
Actually I’m right on point with Schlomach the blivit(10 pounds of shit in a five pound sack) but decided to be a bit tame. Perhaps you should ponder the basic difference between “private” and “public” oversight, and add some human tendencies to the mix as CA has. Now who certifies those “privately issued licenses and certifications.” In critical areas as being qualified or certified to do WHATEVER – - – - > WHERE EVER? Oh you got that covered, “There could be several boards competing for certification business’ which would help to keep all of the boards honest and competitively priced.” Excuse me I have toooo taaakke aa break to grind and snort one of the elephant tranquilizers I got from the zoo-aka GOP headquarters.
…
…
Ah… much better!
Seems to me Hunter that you don’t believe in the individual State and their right of self-governance under the U.S. Constitution? Or is it county and municipality rights that are in play?
http://www.azcommerce.com/more-info.aspx?url=/BusAsst/SmallBiz/SBS/IA/SelectedProfessions.htm
http://www.azdor.gov/Business/LicensingGuide.aspx
Some thoughtful points there, JPD!
There has been and continues to be an obvious effort to cloud what “conservative” means. It doesn’t take a lot of reflection to realize which end of the political spectrum benefits from that, LOL!
It appears to me that today a lot of conservatives are giving the bulk of their attention to budget, debt and spending matters. That makes sense in a couple of respects. First, there can be no effective national security or national defense if we are completely ruined financially. Secondly, it was the stated strategy of Al Qaeda to bankrupt the U. S. through a protracted war. So seeking to turn around our disastrous fiscal trajectory is of vital importance. It is, however, more than possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Addressing fiscal issues is no excuse for ignoring or caving on social issues or issues like immigration!
I agree wholeheartedly with your last point, JPD. There is, of course, a place for federal authority but both George W. Bush and B. Hussein Obama have sought to trample on states’ rights and to create a “unitary executive”. Read that as “monarch” or “dictator”.
There is an interesting local story regarding deregulation, health care and competition to lower costs.
It used to be that if a local hospital wanted to do, let’s say, coronary atery bypass surgery, they had to get permission to expand into that area. That was done away with based on the idea that increased competition would lower costs. So, all kinds of hospitals started doing coronary atery bypass surgery. What was the outcome of that?
Well, first of all, costs did NOT go down. Secondly, very few hospitals were doing a sufficient number of that procedure per year to qualify as a center of excellence for that particular type of surgery. So there was no cost saving and the quality went down.
That’s an example of why we need to be careful about buying into fixed ideas. Some things sound good and logical on paper but fall apart when actually implemented!
Reminds me of the beauty queen who wrote to Albert Einstein proposing that they should have children together as the children would have her looks and his brains. Einstein wrote back saying; “What, Madam, if the children were to have my looks and your brains?”