unicornbomb

unicornbomb t1_ja0p80u wrote

Reply to comment by Sea-Intention6698 in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

UK has the NVQ system, and you aren’t going to be hired without first doing an apprenticeship or having nvq level 2 in hairdressing.

1

unicornbomb t1_j9z2oxn wrote

Reply to comment by Jmazoso in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

Yea, the current method of reciprocity is kind of ridiculous IMO. How it should work — if you hold a license in one state that shares reciprocity with another, the original license kept current should be all that is needed. I.e. you have a MD license which shares reciprocity with VA, so you can work in either state with a current MD license.

That or the obvious national licensing option, but that is likely a pipe dream unfortunately.

2

unicornbomb t1_j9yny3z wrote

Reply to comment by linusth3cat in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

The solution to this is license reciprocity or national licensing standards though, not removing licensing entirely.

9

unicornbomb t1_j9ynn5y wrote

Reply to comment by dcheesi in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

There’s also a huge potential for blood borne pathogen spread due to the use of straight razors, waxing, etc that requires appropriate training in technique, single use implements, blood spill procedure and sanitation.

Along with the potential to spread things like lice if the stylist isn’t trained on what to look for and appropriately cleaning and sterilizing tools.

16

unicornbomb t1_j5uqjqr wrote

Reply to comment by CyanideCocktails in Lamont proposes allowing CT pharmacists to prescribe birth control by gabbydeben

Not a dude. “Less risk” doesn’t mean “no risk” — it simply means the risk profile is below or on par with over the counter medications.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-are-safe-and-simple-why-do-they-require-a-prescription/

Also relevant: most progestin only pills are not associated with any increased risk in blood clots according to studies cited in the above article.

The increased risk only exists for combination pills, and even then it’s small - between 3-9 out of 10,000, vs 1-5 out of 10,000 without the pill.

This risk profile is extremely simple to filter out via simple self reported health surveys — for those who report they have a family history of clots, experience migraines, or are smokers - progestin only pills. This is the exact extent of risk profiling your doctor will do when it comes to prescribing the pill.

No one is arguing for pharmacists to be inserting iuds or implants in the middle of cvs, so this is really only relevant to the pill.

1

unicornbomb t1_j5uimbf wrote

Reply to comment by the-crotch in Lamont proposes allowing CT pharmacists to prescribe birth control by gabbydeben

Unfortunately removing the prescription requirements entirely would require federal action, it’s not within the powers of state governments. The most they can do under current regulation is to allow it to be prescribed by pharmacists (which 7 states currently allow) but it’s still an improvement over the current hurdles.

2

unicornbomb t1_j1z7ttg wrote

Reply to Don’t hug me I’m scared of other states by CaesarSaladin7

As someone from the dmv (dc, Maryland, Virginia), who now is in Fairfield county… while drivers here are aggressive af, folks do at least tend to know what they’re doing and understand the basics like zipper merges without bringing traffic to a complete stop. In the DMV you get insane aggressive driving combined with people with absolutely zero awareness or basic road skills, which is horrifying lmao.

2

unicornbomb t1_iuhw1fn wrote

Reply to How do you think the 5¢ nip tax is going? Have you seen less of these little bottles all over the place? by MongooseProXC

A 5 cent tax won’t stop an alcoholic from buying whatever they can afford to get their fix, let alone dumping it on the side of the road.

While I’m here, can we stop putting such a huge tax on bottled water? Norwalk municipal water comes out of the tap orange and brown at least twice a month. Half the bottle return centers here are either closed half the time due to malfunctioning equipment, or have grossly limited hours. I just put it in the weekly recycling bin.

Or yknow, I guess we could just do something about the state of the city water here so I actually feel comfortable letting my family and pets drink it.

1