How much of licensing in the world of professionals is a requirement due to the insirance companies. ?

This I imagine is due to two things.

One the insurance company is taking every precaution to prevent lawsuits.

Two the insurance companies have learned over time that folks with skills but to checks and balances such as testing ones ability opens the door to hazards of one sort or another.

Face the facts, Insirance companies dictate the proceedures of all companies and many individuals over time.

my 2 cents worth

Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:
Well that's why you live there and I don't want to.

BTW, it's my understanding that one or more socialist partis are fairly strong in the UK (the labor party for one). That appears to be reflected in UK policy. To each their own but, no thanks.

as an example,a general care doctor will refer a patient to a specialist,they will probobly consult each other and compliment each other and maintain a professional image.a doctor more than likely wont talk bad about another and they probobly dont price gouge each other.i know a couple farriers that have the professionalism to behave in this manner,but most i know do not.i like the buisness how it is.people can spend as little or much as they want.people cant afford healthcare,what if we created an equine hoofcare crisis?would the govt subsidise it?

mustang farrier service wrote:
There is a range of prices with doctors but insurance and government interference seem to be changing that. When my kids were young, I had no insurance but we had a FANTASTIC doctor with very reasonable rates.

When I was young, my father didn't make much and there was only one car. The doctor came to the house when one of us kids were sick. How many people could afford to have a doctor come to the house these days? I really get a kick out of it. You call for an appointment because someone is sick and they want to set you up with a day three weeks out...the sick person is well by then.

Examinations used to be examinations. Now they look at you for 30 seconds from across the room and charge a couple hundred bucks.

Lastly, I don't think it's very professional when "professionals" put sticking together and supporting eachother above acting in the patients best interest. They seem to forget who they're working for.

The government keeps talking about fixing it but they're how it got broke in the first place.

I like our trade the way it is too.

vthorseshoe wrote:My opinion is not much. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession there is a very good definition of profession and there is also a link to professionalization. There are commonly derived steps to the process of professionalization.

Mike Ferrara wrote:Believe what you want. But you're wrong!

Wrong about the politics and wrong that licencing farriers marks the end of democracy and that the socialists are heading for world domination!

I find the licensing issue disscussion very amusing. We use doctors, nurses, and other licensed professionals as an example. Would it be a national license(probably not due to logistics), a state license or a county license? Why doesn't each state make veternarians responsible for shoeing a horse? Then if an individual wanted to become a farrier they could attend a veternarian university and become a licensed farrier by the state. Problem solved right? What about a county license? That would probably be a real joke due to local county politics. As an example there are counties in Missouri that don't require electricians to be licensed or builders for that matter and don't have county regulations either. So if the state declares that farriers have to be licensed that would be great for the care of the horse but it could be stalled in a barn that could burn to the ground because of shoddy electrical work. Now that is real comforting! If the state were to require a 4 year degree program for farriers to become licensed how many horses would pay the price? I shoe in mostly rural Missouri and I can tell you they couldn't afford to get their horses shod because farriers would have to factor their education into their prices. They are all ready doing most of their own vet work and it is like pulling teeth to get them to get rads or even have the vet do a follow up visit.
What if we approach it from a skilled trades perspective? In my area the carpenters and electricians require their members to go through an apprentice program where they are educated by the local union halls. Once you become a journeyman you have passed all their requirements and received a great deal of education. The Carpenters and IBEW have invested thousands and thousands of dollars to promote their members skills yet "John Q Public" opts for non union labor because it is cheaper.
I have seen numerous discussions for and against but my question for those that are for it, how do you implement it and what is going to be the testing protocol? Once it is implemented how do you police it? Who decides if Rick Burten, Jay Perry(sorry guys your names just came to mind) or myself used the right protocol to shoe the horse? Do we have inspectors come check our work every 6 months to make sure that we are shoeing up to standards set by the licensing? What are the administration costs going to be and is "John Q Public" going to be able to afford them when absorbed into shoeing costs. These are just some of my concerns and I have to admit I have very mixed emotions about the whole thought of licensing.
Wayne

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:I know nothing about the bar exams however if you do a quick research on most other professions, nurses, electricians, plumber, building inspectors, etc.. You will find that the test are all multiply guess and now days done on a computer in a testing center. A side not for a building inspector all you have to do to be certified is take a timed test on the building codes, no experience in the trades required and its open book.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:Wrong, it call outsourcing, by the government using a third party they don't have to pay personnel cost.

And the schools teach to the test as their accreditation is based on how many of their students pass the test

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:Where do you draw the line? How much training or experience should be required before permitting a person to offer his services to the public--6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or double one of these periods? And who gets to make the decision?

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:Who's standard? Who should determine what the standard is? Why should they be the ones to determine the standard? And how is the standard to be enforced?

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:I thought you to be more intelligent than to just take ones opinion off of a web site to determine credibility of the writer. Without ever reading any of their writings.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:Actually if you were to only study the writings of Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto and the compare that to what has happened over the last 40 years in history of the United States Government, and what is currently happenings. You might just be surprised on how close we are to becoming a socialist-communist society. Of course you need to be open minded and honest with yourself during your research. Conspiracy or not it pretty darn scary what you will learn.

Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:Actually they are very related. The erosion of democracy and freedom starts with the removal of personal property and personal freedoms. Many times using the term it for the good of the public as a whole.

Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:
Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:
It's informative to read the liturature of the modern socialist parties which are still based on Marx but you don't have to go far in research to see that we lose more of our liberty every day. We have modern day versions of the stamp act on about 1000 different fronts.
From http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCWPSPlgZS5xB8jhFZnElg4JejBgD977RM3G0
"Health care reform" not only means paying for someone elses healthcare, it means bering told what health care you can have and how you must live. When the government goes after one group they don't like to subsidize another group or pet program, they're going WAY too far.

It's time to say "No" and then it's time for the talking to stop.

Gary_Miller wrote:There would also be no such thing as malpractice or false advertising enforcement. That bottle of asprin . . . could be tea leaves or chicken manure. You don't know what's in the bottle unless you can test it yourself and know how to test it.

Go for an x-ray and you don't know how much radiation exposure you got. Buy a house, and you won't know if it will collpase or burn to the ground from an electrical fire unless you take it apart and inspect it - even then you don't know if the wire used will actually handle the amperage unless you test it yourself.

May as well not have any stop signs or traffic lights. You don't know if the driver comming the other way has a clue about whether red means go, stop, or go faster . . . or if he decides to stop, will his brakes work or not?

OTOH, you could buy a uniform and wear a badge and a gun and tell everybody you are a police officer. Nothing to prevent anybody that says so from deciding to be a police officer and enforcing their own laws.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:

Insurance is one way the "associations" hold your nuts to the fire. Even in industries where licensing isn't required by law, there isn't any way to get insurance without working through an "association".

You then become obligated to work to their standards which are NOT necessarily good standards.

The incentive isn't even to create "good standards" Since the association may essentially get a cut of the unit price (thinking of a specific industry here), they're interested in volume rather than quality. So...the industry uses their muscle to hold quality down.

LOL, if someone wants to "professionalize" my business, they can follow me around with a broom or detail the truck.

tbloomer wrote:
I don't think anyone is advocating a complete lack of law or government. I think our founders had a pretty good idea of what government should be (very limited, for one thing) and they had a pretty good plan (the Constitution).

But people forget old lessons and they're giving up their liberties for the promise of being taken care of. Freedom is risky because you might make a mistake. People don't have the courage for it anymore.

Gary_Miller in gray, stuff deleted

I know of no profession that does a criminal background check. If there was who would determine if the person was cleared to practice in their chosen profession?

Policemen, firemen, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, veterinarians - virtually EVERY individual in every profession undergoes some sort of criminal background check. On the other hand, while the clergy are considered professionals in the classic sense, the profession is akin to farriery in that there are no educational requirements, no licensure, no background check, no nothing - anybody who wants to call himself a preacher can be a preacher.

Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:
True socialism (which is what socialists want) can't exist in isolation. It's also not very compatible with religion or, for that matter, any kind of individualism. Read up on some of the UN treaties and resolutions. Recently, in another thread, I linked to an article on one of them that's really over the top and adresses religion. The US hasn't signed on (although some are urging it) but the UK and most other countries have.

I don't think this is the same article but it's the same treaty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/