It's an interesting case. I could see it go either way.

(10-18-2014 05:38 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 07:01 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Face it, the public doesn't care about the health of their gums and if they have cavities until it hurts or the tooth is about to fall out.

There it is, folks. The "You don't know how to take care of yourself" justification for government. You don't know because, well, you're just you. But this guy over here knows what's best... It doesn't matter if he's lining his pockets while doing so, he just knows best. Why does he know best? Well, because he said so, that's why!

my favorite post ever......you made spit on my screen with that post.....and I just took off my bib....

(10-20-2014 06:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 05:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 02:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's gov't regulated not dentist regulated. The dentists have to jump through gov't hoops too.

Six of the board’s eight members are licensed practicing dentists (elected by other licensed practicing dentists), one member is a licensed dental hygienist, and the final member is a "consumer representative". The overwhelming majority of the board's members have a direct financial stake in preventing others from offering these services.
From the circuit court decision "At the end of the day this case is about a state board run by private actors in the marketplace taking action outside of the procedures mandated by state law to expel a competitor from the market."
Private actors are directly commandeering the use of govt. force for their own profit. There's not even a bureaucrat or politician as the middle man.

This is pretty common on most state boards.

And this is why this is an important case, because these tactics are both common and destructive.

always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

(10-21-2014 10:39 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:35 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  ... will lead to multiple tiers of dentistry which is unsafe to the public.

There already are multiple tiers to dentistry. Just like with doctors.

I go to an oncologist for cancer, a cardiologist for heart health, and my GP for physicals, strep throat, etc.

I go to a teeth whitener for whitening, an orthodontist for braces, and my run-of-the-mill dentist for cleaning, fillings, etc.

Try again.

Those aren't tiers of medicine or dentistry, they are specialties. A creating tiers in medicine would be like letting a physician assistant, nurse, med tech all work independently without any supervision from a doctor.

(10-21-2014 10:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:35 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There are existing rules and regulations that current providers followed in order to deliver care. Deregulating the profession will lead to multiple tiers of dentistry which is unsafe to the public. This is the same crap that is going on in the taxi industry.

Yes, more people getting better service (and typically for less money). The horror. The horror.

Quote:The OTC whiteners are not the same strength.

If they weren't, how are the teeth whiteners getting them?

You are allowed to buy 5-10% strength OTC, 16-22% is for professional use.

Whoa! Who says the service is better and for less money?
I don't think you understand how dentistry is delivered in the US. It relies almost completely on small business investment. Some dentistry is easy, some is hard, some is profitable, some not. If you start gov't deregulating based on what procedures the gov't thinks are easy, you remove any incentive for someone to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into building a dental facilty. If the gov't wants to start financially funding dental practices like they do hospitals that's cool, but you'll hate the delivery method and it won't be cheaper. The gov't is already pushing another tier of mid-level dental providers which can do deep cleanings, small fillings and extract teeth.

(10-22-2014 03:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 06:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 05:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 02:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 08:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's gov't regulated not dentist regulated. The dentists have to jump through gov't hoops too.

Six of the board’s eight members are licensed practicing dentists (elected by other licensed practicing dentists), one member is a licensed dental hygienist, and the final member is a "consumer representative". The overwhelming majority of the board's members have a direct financial stake in preventing others from offering these services.
From the circuit court decision "At the end of the day this case is about a state board run by private actors in the marketplace taking action outside of the procedures mandated by state law to expel a competitor from the market."
Private actors are directly commandeering the use of govt. force for their own profit. There's not even a bureaucrat or politician as the middle man.

This is pretty common on most state boards.

And this is why this is an important case, because these tactics are both common and destructive.

always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

"making over market value"? Are you the market? Why are you against small business entrepreneurship? The initial investment of capital is made by individual with a lot of regulations to get by. So when that individual sees a return on their investment the rules should be changed because they are making too much? Sounds like socialism to me. "You didn't build that!"

(10-22-2014 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 06:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 05:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 02:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Six of the board’s eight members are licensed practicing dentists (elected by other licensed practicing dentists), one member is a licensed dental hygienist, and the final member is a "consumer representative". The overwhelming majority of the board's members have a direct financial stake in preventing others from offering these services.
From the circuit court decision "At the end of the day this case is about a state board run by private actors in the marketplace taking action outside of the procedures mandated by state law to expel a competitor from the market."
Private actors are directly commandeering the use of govt. force for their own profit. There's not even a bureaucrat or politician as the middle man.

This is pretty common on most state boards.

And this is why this is an important case, because these tactics are both common and destructive.

always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

"making over market value"? Are you the market? Why are you against small business entrepreneurship? The initial investment of capital is made by individual with a lot of regulations to get by. So when that individual sees a return on their investment the rules should be changed because they are making too much? Sounds like socialism to me. "You didn't build that!"

I'm not personally (the market nor against entrepreneurship)....however, dentistry has changed quite a bit over time.....improvements via technology have impacted that field as much as any in the health care industry....

hell, when was the last time a dentist cleaned your teeth? the techs with tits seem to know as much as the dentist....his visit is nothing more than, "hi...everything looks great...pay at the front".....yeah, I really need to pay $100/min for that.....but I do....just not as frequently as in the past

what is a podiatrist to do??? sue doctor scholls?????

does the orthopedic sue the manufacturer of preventive devices?????

does the heart surgeon sue dieticians????

it's their choice to enter a continually evolving job market that is rendering specialized care for common/simple maintenance irrelevant...dentists are nothing more than mechanics of the TEETH....now that oral hygiene is infinitely better than in the past, those guys are begging for other avenues to get paid....it's nothing more than that....

it's not like it's self disembowelment to yank out a kidney

it's freakin' teeth whitening....if a product can be self applied safely and distributed responsibly, it's a slam dunk in my book...

your version sounds like a dictatorship....btw, not all investments in self or any other always work out favorably (that would be socialism).....go figure.....

edit: shockingly, I'm a huge fan of consumerism....go figure

(10-22-2014 05:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:35 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There are existing rules and regulations that current providers followed in order to deliver care. Deregulating the profession will lead to multiple tiers of dentistry which is unsafe to the public. This is the same crap that is going on in the taxi industry.

Yes, more people getting better service (and typically for less money). The horror. The horror.

Quote:The OTC whiteners are not the same strength.

If they weren't, how are the teeth whiteners getting them?

You are allowed to buy 5-10% strength OTC, 16-22% is for professional use.

Either the teeth whiteners are trained professionals or they are just like ordinary people. If the former is true your argument breaks down because then the teeth whiteners are trained. If the latter is true your argument breaks down because ordinary people can buy the full strength teeth whiteners. But either way, your argument breaks down.

Quote:Whoa! Who says the service is better and for less money?

Riders in virtually every city that has deregulated their taxi system as well as the thousands (millions?) of people flocking to Uber and Lyft. You picked the analogy, not me.

Quote:I don't think you understand how dentistry is delivered in the US. It relies almost completely on small business investment. Some dentistry is easy, some is hard, some is profitable, some not. If you start gov't deregulating based on what procedures the gov't thinks are easy, you remove any incentive for someone to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into building a dental facilty. If the gov't wants to start financially funding dental practices like they do hospitals that's cool, but you'll hate the delivery method and it won't be cheaper.

If your business model depends on preventing others from competing with you, then it is a broken business model. And broken business models do not deserve to continue. They certainly do not deserve to be propped up by the government.

Quote:The gov't is already pushing another tier of mid-level dental providers which can do deep cleanings, small fillings and extract teeth.

Sounds like good news to me.

(10-22-2014 08:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 06:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 05:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This is pretty common on most state boards.

And this is why this is an important case, because these tactics are both common and destructive.

always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

"making over market value"? Are you the market? Why are you against small business entrepreneurship? The initial investment of capital is made by individual with a lot of regulations to get by. So when that individual sees a return on their investment the rules should be changed because they are making too much? Sounds like socialism to me. "You didn't build that!"

I'm not personally (the market nor against entrepreneurship)....however, dentistry has changed quite a bit over time.....improvements via technology have impacted that field as much as any in the health care industry....

hell, when was the last time a dentist cleaned your teeth? the techs with tits seem to know as much as the dentist....his visit is nothing more than, "hi...everything looks great...pay at the front".....yeah, I really need to pay $100/min for that.....but I do....just not as frequently as in the past

what is a podiatrist to do??? sue doctor scholls?????

does the orthopedic sue the manufacturer of preventive devices?????

does the heart surgeon sue dieticians????

it's their choice to enter a continually evolving job market that is rendering specialized care for common/simple maintenance irrelevant...dentists are nothing more than mechanics of the TEETH....now that oral hygiene is infinitely better than in the past, those guys are begging for other avenues to get paid....it's nothing more than that....

it's not like it's self disembowelment to yank out a kidney

it's freakin' teeth whitening....if a product can be self applied safely and distributed responsibly, it's a slam dunk in my book...

your version sounds like a dictatorship....btw, not all investments in self or any other always work out favorably (that would be socialism).....go figure.....

edit: shockingly, I'm a huge fan of consumerism....go figure

Actually dentistry hasn't changed much in the past 50 years. The technology actually increases not decreases the cost of treatment. Insurance reimbursements haven't changed since the 1970's yet every part of running a practice has. Payroll, rent, supplies, advertising, equipment, etc. $100 doesn't put a dent in any of that. The delivery of care (more assistants) has changed because it had to in order to remain profitable. If you aren't profitable you can't serve the public (unlike hospitals). Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry. Just because someone doesn't want to follow those rules doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry.

Tell me again how the government removing rules it has imposed to interfere with the market is actually the government interfering with the market.

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 06:33 PM)jh Wrote:  And this is why this is an important case, because these tactics are both common and destructive.

always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

"making over market value"? Are you the market? Why are you against small business entrepreneurship? The initial investment of capital is made by individual with a lot of regulations to get by. So when that individual sees a return on their investment the rules should be changed because they are making too much? Sounds like socialism to me. "You didn't build that!"

I'm not personally (the market nor against entrepreneurship)....however, dentistry has changed quite a bit over time.....improvements via technology have impacted that field as much as any in the health care industry....

hell, when was the last time a dentist cleaned your teeth? the techs with tits seem to know as much as the dentist....his visit is nothing more than, "hi...everything looks great...pay at the front".....yeah, I really need to pay $100/min for that.....but I do....just not as frequently as in the past

what is a podiatrist to do??? sue doctor scholls?????

does the orthopedic sue the manufacturer of preventive devices?????

does the heart surgeon sue dieticians????

it's their choice to enter a continually evolving job market that is rendering specialized care for common/simple maintenance irrelevant...dentists are nothing more than mechanics of the TEETH....now that oral hygiene is infinitely better than in the past, those guys are begging for other avenues to get paid....it's nothing more than that....

it's not like it's self disembowelment to yank out a kidney

it's freakin' teeth whitening....if a product can be self applied safely and distributed responsibly, it's a slam dunk in my book...

your version sounds like a dictatorship....btw, not all investments in self or any other always work out favorably (that would be socialism).....go figure.....

edit: shockingly, I'm a huge fan of consumerism....go figure

Actually dentistry hasn't changed much in the past 50 years. The technology actually increases not decreases the cost of treatment. Insurance reimbursements haven't changed since the 1970's yet every part of running a practice has. Payroll, rent, supplies, advertising, equipment, etc. $100 doesn't put a dent in any of that. The delivery of care (more assistants) has changed because it had to in order to remain profitable. If you aren't profitable you can't serve the public (unlike hospitals). Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry. Just because someone doesn't want to follow those rules doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

so let me get this straight.....over time, a service that hasn't changed in practice, yet costs more to maintain on a percentage basis, is a good business model that should be supported by subsidized rule?

now I'm really lost differentiating between socialism and a dictatorship......

(10-22-2014 09:45 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:35 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There are existing rules and regulations that current providers followed in order to deliver care. Deregulating the profession will lead to multiple tiers of dentistry which is unsafe to the public. This is the same crap that is going on in the taxi industry.

Yes, more people getting better service (and typically for less money). The horror. The horror.

Quote:The OTC whiteners are not the same strength.

If they weren't, how are the teeth whiteners getting them?

You are allowed to buy 5-10% strength OTC, 16-22% is for professional use.

Either the teeth whiteners are trained professionals or they are just like ordinary people. If the former is true your argument breaks down because then the teeth whiteners are trained. If the latter is true your argument breaks down because ordinary people can buy the full strength teeth whiteners. But either way, your argument breaks down.

Quote:Whoa! Who says the service is better and for less money?

Riders in virtually every city that has deregulated their taxi system as well as the thousands (millions?) of people flocking to Uber and Lyft. You picked the analogy, not me.

Quote:I don't think you understand how dentistry is delivered in the US. It relies almost completely on small business investment. Some dentistry is easy, some is hard, some is profitable, some not. If you start gov't deregulating based on what procedures the gov't thinks are easy, you remove any incentive for someone to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into building a dental facilty. If the gov't wants to start financially funding dental practices like they do hospitals that's cool, but you'll hate the delivery method and it won't be cheaper.

If your business model depends on preventing others from competing with you, then it is a broken business model. And broken business models do not deserve to continue. They certainly do not deserve to be propped up by the government.

Quote:The gov't is already pushing another tier of mid-level dental providers which can do deep cleanings, small fillings and extract teeth.

Sounds like good news to me.

The teeth-whiteners aren't professionally trained but are using professional strength tooth whitening. If they want to use OTC teeth whitening that anyone can buy, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to become dentists, I don't have a problem with that either. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Uber & Lyft is a perfect example of an unfair competition. The taxi companies jump through gov't hoops that Lyft & Uber avoid. Of course they are cheaper.

These business models doesn't depend on preventing others from competing. Anyone can compete, they just have to jump through the same hoops as everybody else but they don't want to. No special treatment. Same goes for Tesla too.

(10-22-2014 10:18 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry.

Tell me again how the government removing rules it has imposed to interfere with the market is actually the government interfering with the market.

Gov't makes rules for Person A do to X. Person A follows rules in order to do X. Person B doesn't want to follow rules to do X. Person B lobbies gov't to change rules so that they can do X without following the rules.

That's just as bad as gov't adding regulations for Person A. Gov't sets the rules then increases/decreases regulation for those who followed the rules.

(10-22-2014 10:31 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  always loved that, "this is da way we'd always dun it".....yeah, I've heard that more than should be legally tolerable in this neck o' woods.....

it's amusing that deciding how making over market value amounts of money seemingly always ends up in the hands of a few.....

"making over market value"? Are you the market? Why are you against small business entrepreneurship? The initial investment of capital is made by individual with a lot of regulations to get by. So when that individual sees a return on their investment the rules should be changed because they are making too much? Sounds like socialism to me. "You didn't build that!"

I'm not personally (the market nor against entrepreneurship)....however, dentistry has changed quite a bit over time.....improvements via technology have impacted that field as much as any in the health care industry....

hell, when was the last time a dentist cleaned your teeth? the techs with tits seem to know as much as the dentist....his visit is nothing more than, "hi...everything looks great...pay at the front".....yeah, I really need to pay $100/min for that.....but I do....just not as frequently as in the past

what is a podiatrist to do??? sue doctor scholls?????

does the orthopedic sue the manufacturer of preventive devices?????

does the heart surgeon sue dieticians????

it's their choice to enter a continually evolving job market that is rendering specialized care for common/simple maintenance irrelevant...dentists are nothing more than mechanics of the TEETH....now that oral hygiene is infinitely better than in the past, those guys are begging for other avenues to get paid....it's nothing more than that....

it's not like it's self disembowelment to yank out a kidney

it's freakin' teeth whitening....if a product can be self applied safely and distributed responsibly, it's a slam dunk in my book...

your version sounds like a dictatorship....btw, not all investments in self or any other always work out favorably (that would be socialism).....go figure.....

edit: shockingly, I'm a huge fan of consumerism....go figure

Actually dentistry hasn't changed much in the past 50 years. The technology actually increases not decreases the cost of treatment. Insurance reimbursements haven't changed since the 1970's yet every part of running a practice has. Payroll, rent, supplies, advertising, equipment, etc. $100 doesn't put a dent in any of that. The delivery of care (more assistants) has changed because it had to in order to remain profitable. If you aren't profitable you can't serve the public (unlike hospitals). Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry. Just because someone doesn't want to follow those rules doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

so let me get this straight.....over time, a service that hasn't changed in practice, yet costs more to maintain on a percentage basis, is a good business model that should be supported by subsidized rule?

now I'm really lost differentiating between socialism and a dictatorship......

The increase cost comes from labor. You can't outsource dentistry (maybe lab work) to China.

The business model is not subsidized. Anybody can get a dental license. There are 55+ dental schools in America, all are accepting applications. People just want to make money by avoiding all of that. I get it.

(10-22-2014 10:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The teeth-whiteners aren't professionally trained but are using professional strength tooth whitening. If they want to use OTC teeth whitening that anyone can buy, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to become dentists, I don't have a problem with that either. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Okay, you claim that teeth whiteners are not professionally trained. Yet they have access to professional grade products that are not available to ordinary people. What is it about teeth whiteners that allows them to access to these products when nobody else, besides licensed dentists, can?

(10-22-2014 10:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:18 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry.

Tell me again how the government removing rules it has imposed to interfere with the market is actually the government interfering with the market.

Gov't makes rules for Person A do to X. Person A follows rules in order to do X. Person B doesn't want to follow rules to do X. Person B lobbies gov't to change rules so that they can do X without following the rules.
That's just as bad as gov't adding regulations for Person A. Gov't sets the rules then increases/decreases regulation for those who followed the rules.

No, it isn't. The government interferes with the market when it sets the initial rules. Removing those rules might interfere with the artificial market created by government intervention, but it does not interfere with the actual market.

And you are completely neglecting the fact that the government in this case is dominated by existing practitioners.

(10-22-2014 10:39 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The teeth-whiteners aren't professionally trained but are using professional strength tooth whitening. If they want to use OTC teeth whitening that anyone can buy, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to become dentists, I don't have a problem with that either. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Okay, you claim that teeth whiteners are not professionally trained. Yet they have access to professional grade products that are not available to ordinary people. What is it about teeth whiteners that allows them to access to these products when nobody else, besides licensed dentists, can?

Thank you for asking because I was just about to get to that point. The stuff is usually sold by dental suppliers but you can find it on ebay. If ordinary people want to buy on ebay and put it on themselves, that's fine. You can find Botox on ebay too.

(10-22-2014 10:45 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:18 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry.

Tell me again how the government removing rules it has imposed to interfere with the market is actually the government interfering with the market.

Gov't makes rules for Person A do to X. Person A follows rules in order to do X. Person B doesn't want to follow rules to do X. Person B lobbies gov't to change rules so that they can do X without following the rules.
That's just as bad as gov't adding regulations for Person A. Gov't sets the rules then increases/decreases regulation for those who followed the rules.

No, it isn't. The government interferes with the market when it sets the initial rules. Removing those rules might interfere with the artificial market created by government intervention, but it does not interfere with the actual market.

And you are completely neglecting the fact that the government in this case is dominated by existing practitioners.

You have to set rules otherwise there is anarchy. So what if it's dominated by existing practioners? Still doesn't prevent anyone from joining the Board.

(10-22-2014 11:03 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:45 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:18 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Deregulating is just as bad as over over-regulating. It's gov't interfering in the market. The gov't set the rules in order to provide dentistry.

Tell me again how the government removing rules it has imposed to interfere with the market is actually the government interfering with the market.

Gov't makes rules for Person A do to X. Person A follows rules in order to do X. Person B doesn't want to follow rules to do X. Person B lobbies gov't to change rules so that they can do X without following the rules.
That's just as bad as gov't adding regulations for Person A. Gov't sets the rules then increases/decreases regulation for those who followed the rules.

No, it isn't. The government interferes with the market when it sets the initial rules. Removing those rules might interfere with the artificial market created by government intervention, but it does not interfere with the actual market.

And you are completely neglecting the fact that the government in this case is dominated by existing practitioners.

You have to set rules otherwise there is anarchy. So what if it's dominated by existing practioners? Still doesn't prevent anyone from joining the Board.

hmmmmm....the self serving administrators....it all makes sense to avoid "anarchy".....

(10-22-2014 11:00 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:39 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The teeth-whiteners aren't professionally trained but are using professional strength tooth whitening. If they want to use OTC teeth whitening that anyone can buy, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to become dentists, I don't have a problem with that either. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Okay, you claim that teeth whiteners are not professionally trained. Yet they have access to professional grade products that are not available to ordinary people. What is it about teeth whiteners that allows them to access to these products when nobody else, besides licensed dentists, can?

Thank you for asking because I was just about to get to that point. The stuff is usually sold by dental suppliers but you can find it on ebay. If ordinary people want to buy on ebay and put it on themselves, that's fine. You can find Botox on ebay too.

How does enough material get on Ebay to support an entire industry?