Thread: Home Inspector Licensing 2007 Scorecard

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Deep thinking is not required to understand that government makes more messes than it cleans up.

Your beef is with lenders and insurance companies.

I'm not going to change your mind in thinking that government is the solution.

Government has a horrible track record of solving real problems let alone made up ones like the need for home inspector regulation.

I have no beef with lenders or insurance companies, in fact I often bring the subject of them coming up with their own requirements for a Home Inspections when I talk to them

I'm not a great proponent of Government myself, my arguments about HI Regulation have always been that when faced with the inevitable, get the best deal you can.

If you don't like government interference then you must be as happy as I am about the FED giving, possibly, up to a Trillion $$$ of taxpayer money, which we have to borrow from China, to Banks and Lending Institutions to bail them out after their greed, arrogance, and mismanagement has lead to their failing. Maybe if they had been regulated they wouldn't have failed, seeing as they weren't then the lack or regulation and government interference should continue and the ones that failed should just go away, saving our children and grandchildren from paying off the loan required to "save" the same banks that paid the executives ten's of millions a year for running the company into the ground. Kind of like the avings and Loan Fiasco from back in the first Bush Administration.

They were regulated and threatened with more if they didn't start lending to sub prime borrowers and creating much of the mess we are now in.

And now the FED is bailing out Wall Street. Guess who gets to pay for it all? You and me and the rest of the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren.

They are so into controlling the economy they think they have no other choice.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

They were regulated and threatened with more if they didn't start lending to sub prime borrowers creating much of the mess we are now in.

And now the FED is bailing out Wall Street. Guess who gets to pay for it all? You and me and the rest of the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren.

They are so into controlling the economy they think they have no other choice.

You might want to study the problem a little more Michael, Banks were and are regulated, Investment Institutions like Bear Sterns weren't and aren't, yet the FED is giving them Billions, 36 this week, without any regualtions or procedures in place to ensure that the same failures don't happen again. Remember that most of those who ran these companies have made Millions, what does it matter to them if their companies failed, the only one hurt by their failures are the stock holders who don't seem to have been upset over the past several years by the sub prime and minumum ARM loans their managers gave out.

If you want some ijnteresting reading google "Minimum or Option ARMs", I'd never heard of them until I was in Vegas a couple of years ago and saw ads on TV about how you could, with nothing down, purchase a $649K home for only $960 a month using a Minimum ARM Loan. Idiots throughout Nevada and Southern Cal jumped on these loans, not even paying the monthly interest on the loan.

Under these loans, many of which end up with a higher balance every month, once the payoff or balance reaches 110 to 120% of the value of the home, the loan is automatically recast with the payment amortized over the remaining period of the loan at the preset interest which for some loans was 10% or more, $960 a month becomes several thousand, and we're supposed to spend our tax money bailing out those idiots along with the companies that gave them the loan.....Free Enterprise, sure it is. Wefare for Everyone is more like it.

Lewis, you really need to stop inferring that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Lenders made easy money available to borrowers with low credit worthiness by using stated income loans(make up a number, no one will check), option ARMs, and 0 down loans. Lenders were "encouraged" (strong armed really) to loosen up their lending practices to include more low income and credit challenged individuals.
House flippers "investors" also got in on the easy money and when the bubble burst they all walked away as they now owed more than their properties were worth leaving the bank and now the trading houses who bought the mortgage paper holding the bag.

Everything was fine until the house of cards crumbled under its own weight.
Now the FED comes along and wants to bail out the the very people that caused much of the problem by investing in poorly secured paper. The best thing that could happen is for those who took the risks to take a bath.

You mentioned the Saving and Loan crisis of Carter administration origin.
The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses.

If government chooses to remove the moral hazard from granting a suspect loans and covers the risks of others we are in for a very rough ride. Better to fall hard and quickly than a prolonged broad based recession.

gosh, golly.

LEWIS, et al,

MY post to Raymond and my anology was directed at his usual rampage against HI Nationl Orgs. He believes that they should be controlled by the government, to protect us inspectors from ourselves. My post was that if he didn't like the organization, he is/was in, he is quite free to quit and go elsewhere. That's the beauty of freedom of choice. Government is never the answer, when they get involved, everything goes to hell in a hand basket!!!
You do make a point: That analogy could be the same for any industry, and that it could be true with the HI industry so your turning it around on me can be a valid point.

Raymond and I just have a different political view of government. He has the belief that government is the answer, I fear government!

That being said:

Couple of points on Wa. legislation.

Just my point of view, some/many disagree with me, but freedom of expression is good!!

The good senator did in fact use "protecting the consumer" mantra as a reason for this legislation, seems she got some "complaints" from a couple of people in her district, but was a little "fuzzy" about the "details".

Of course, she could have used "do it for the children" which seems to be the mantra in this state, and workes every time it's used!! That was the mantra for the new over budget Baseball stadium (built for its Japan owner, pushed down our throats, after twice voting it down. It was for the children, who now can no longer attend due to one of the highest game ticket costs in the nation. raise cigarette taxes "for the children" (child health care) Raise hard liquor taxes "for the children" Schools. The only "for the children" tax that was ever turned down was a 10 cent a cup latte tax, Seattle elites, don't tax my choice of sin: (Grande Latte). It never ceases to amaze me, that they have no problem taxing me, but go screaming and kicking when a tax impacts them.

A little off the subject, but it does show how Washington legislation gets passed, with catchy phrases such as: consumer protection, for the children, for the environment, on and on goes the catch words. And being it's the catch word that grabs the attention on the voters (very few actually read the bill) these bills pass usually unapposed.

Inatitive process, better have some deep pockets!!! Tim Eyman deals more in tax cutting/spending, and has saved us thousands in tax dollars

Licensing???? Not overly joyed about it as written. But will live with it, it's now law, can't close the barn door after the horse has been stollen. Being that the issue was under my radar screen and I did not participate in the process, not for me to judge the outcome that others worked so hard on. As is said, "if you don't vote, you have no reason to bitch about the outcome"!!!

If it was really for the consumer, and had consumer stated protections (such as insurance requirements) and , if you will, a consumer "bill of rights" (hate that phrase), then it would truly be a " consumer protection" bill. this Licensing just does not equate to protection for the consumer.

I will side with Michael O Handley on this, he participated in the process of this bill, I did not, so think (know) he is a lot more privy to its meaning/workings than any of us.

I always go by the "follow the money". My understanding is that the license will cost in the 300 to 600 dollar range. Just another cost of business, that WILL be passed onto the consumer. (I always love it when voters want to stick it businesss with taxes/fees. Hate to bust their little bubble, I don't pay the taxes, the consumer does as a part of my cost of business, I am just the collection agency for the goernment!!

My view of a license, is register, be tested, show proof of insurance. Registration would at least be able to provide your address so the process server can find you. Now that's consumer protection!!!



HI, RAYMOND, keep them cards and letters coming!!!!!

Steven posted:

My view of a license, is register, be tested, show proof of insurance. Registration would at least be able to provide your address so the process server can find you. Now that's consumer protection!!!

So you support licencing! Great; I knew that as a newbie inspector with all your opinions you would see the light!

One of you guys need to explain to your recent (rejected by NACHI) "member", Mr. Wand, the difference between licensing and registration.

James why don't you fill us in on the difference?

And how come your attitude is so radically different here on this board than Nachi board where you rule the roost? I have seen many of your private messages and they are not painting you as the person you so desperately want to be seen as.

Originally Posted by Harvey Hempelstern

No home inspection law ever proposed in any state was consumer driven. No consumer or advocacy group has ever lobbied for or publicly supported a home inspection bill or law.

James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

Can anyone explain to me how licencing restricts competition?

Thanks,

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

A consumer who fought to change an existing HI licensing law to minimize a part of the damage it caused consumers....Lorraine Hutton....is a far cry from a consumer pushing for or advocating the need for a licensing law where one does not presently exist.

It has never happened.

Not once in any of the 32 legislative (registration, licensing, etc) actions across the country has a consumer or consumer group led the fight ..... or even participated.

Licensing is a scam.

Licencing is a scam? Anymore than NACHI being a scam?

RAYMOND

This is just to much work, you are just not paying attention/studying my internet Economics 101 course just for you.

REGISTRATION consists of:
name
address
phone number
insurance carrier and policy #

The above makes it easier for the unhappy customer to hunt you down and punch your lights out. It also serves their attorney and process server to also hunt you down.

State tax ID # (this is only state government protection, they want their
"piece of the action" called taxes.
Federal tax ID# Same reason as the state. See above.


LICENSING consists of:
Those items as noted above for Registration.
PLUS!!!!!!
Rules, limitations, regulations of your business, as the government sees
fit.
Restrictions for entering the market place.

So, study your lesson material again.

SUPPLY and DEMAND
Now, this is a concept we have not studied as yet, so here is a short outline of chapter 2.

SUPPLY: is the amount of goods or services available
DEMAND: is the amount of people who want those goods or services.

As an example of Supply and Demand, think of gasoline. As the supply goes down, AND demand goes up, so does the price for that commody.
The more customers for a product in limited supply, The higher the price that product can demand.

Now, you must wonder, does this have to do with licensing?

LICENSING, by its very nature, is restrictive, determines who can enter the business (think trade unions), And, therefore, becomes more of a protection for those already there, and discourages expanding the supply.
Therefore, supply is limited. prices rise. Then the next legislation you will see is price control, Of course to "protect the consumer"!!!!

CHAPTER 2 review
So, does licensing benefit the consumer? If the supply is limited, demand remains the same or rises, then what is the consequence of this?
Prices go up
Due to the lack of competition, the current SUPPLY side can charge as much as they want. Again, consider the gas price example.

CLASS DISMISSED

Your next assignment for chapter 3 is:
Government laws, regulations, taxes: the impact on small business

Study hard, your grade depends on it.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Can anyone explain to me how licencing restricts competition?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thanks,

RAYMOND,

With your total dislike.distrust for HI organizations, why don't you start your own organization? Then you can push for licensing of all those organizations (including your own).

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE

You would own the organization, making all those big bucks from us dumb, uneducated inspectors.

You would have your own bulletin board. And can delet those posts that are not for the common good. And no one can throw you off, just think of the power you would have in the discourse of ideas.

AND: your licensing dream would come true, Your organization along with all others, would be licensed and play under the same rules.

You really ought to think about this.

Could be a dream come true.

OPTION 2: Have you ever considered a cushy government job? You ought to fit in, you love government so much, and just think of the power you would have over your "subjects"!!!

Just a thought

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Steven,

We need protection from ourselves. Anyone who has been in the game long enough and has first hand experience with associations knows that they are anything but self policing. Therein lies the problem vis-a-vis the public, no outside scrutiny or accountability results in the rules being bent for special interests.

Steve

Nice opinions, and you can put the spin you want on licencing, but thats as far as it goes. Its obvious you would rather make a business decision rather than a professional choice.

I am still waiting for hard facts that licencing is a scam and still waiting and that it limits competition. The fact is it does not, just as it has not limited competition with plumbers, heating contractors as they are free to set their own costs/charges, just as contractors like yourself are free to set prices without restriction of any professional challenges interfering.

Thank you for your attempts, pretty good for a contractor!

Next lesson please.

Learn from history, if not, the same mistakes will occur.

Go back to the S & L crisis of the 80's. This was caused some what by the deregulation by the government of banks,but the PRIMARY failure of the banking industry was government changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Not only did the tax payer get hosed by the government bail out, but so did us who owned stocks in the S & L's!!! Lost all of my stock investment in Glen Fed (aka Glendale Federal S&L)

Government is not the answer, it's usually the problem!!!

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

You might want to study the problem a little more Michael, Banks were and are regulated, Investment Institutions like Bear Sterns weren't and aren't, yet the FED is giving them Billions, 36 this week, without any regualtions or procedures in place to ensure that the same failures don't happen again. Remember that most of those who ran these companies have made Millions, what does it matter to them if their companies failed, the only one hurt by their failures are the stock holders who don't seem to have been upset over the past several years by the sub prime and minumum ARM loans their managers gave out.

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

If you want some ijnteresting reading google "Minimum or Option ARMs", I'd never heard of them until I was in Vegas a couple of years ago and saw ads on TV about how you could, with nothing down, purchase a $649K home for only $960 a month using a Minimum ARM Loan. Idiots throughout Nevada and Southern Cal jumped on these loans, not even paying the monthly interest on the loan.

Under these loans, many of which end up with a higher balance every month, once the payoff or balance reaches 110 to 120% of the value of the home, the loan is automatically recast with the payment amortized over the remaining period of the loan at the preset interest which for some loans was 10% or more, $960 a month becomes several thousand, and we're supposed to spend our tax money bailing out those idiots along with the companies that gave them the loan.....Free Enterprise, sure it is. Wefare for Everyone is more like it.

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

It is a good thing that Phil Hinman and NACHI were involved.
The crock you call Poor Licensing is rated by ASHI as the 2nd Best in the Nation.

ASHI's 2007 State Rankings
Below are ASHI's 2007 rankings of state regulations governing the home
inspection industry....
1. Louisiana
2. New Jersey

RAYMOND


Yes, contractors like myself can set our own prices, but those prices we can charge need to be with in the general area others charge.
Not bad for a contractor? Contrary to your negative opinion of contractors, we all didn't fall off the turnip truck recently.

I have a masters degree in economics, with a minor in business management and accounting. This has served me well in making good business decissions over many years.

Professional choice/Business Decissions.
You had darn well be sure you have and are making the best business decissions FIRST, if not, the professional choice goes out the window!

I have NEVER said licensing is a scam, only that it can have unintended consequences, such as limiting competition.

You keep wanting hard facts? You've gotten them, read any econ book or business book, or business magazine, the proof is there.

So, I throw it back into your court. You come up with "Hard evidence" that licensing does not limit competion and raise prices.

Your inclusion of the trades (plumbers, electrictions, HVAC, etc) doesn't wash. Hourly rates, most generaly, are the prevailing (Union) rates, and due to union influence, licensing follows union rules. The hourly rate a business man needs to pay for a union tradesman, is union rate, anything less the worker agrees to he will lose his union status if he works for less.
Called a level playing field. And that does not equate to competion.

I shall anxiously await your hard evidence in support of your conclusions.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Steve

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Nice opinions, and you can put the spin you want on licencing, but thats as far as it goes. Its obvious you would rather make a business decision rather than a professional choice.

I am still waiting for hard facts that licencing is a scam and still waiting and that it limits competition. The fact is it does not, just as it has not limited competition with plumbers, heating contractors as they are free to set their own costs/charges, just as contractors like yourself are free to set prices without restriction of any professional challenges interfering.

Thank you for your attempts, pretty good for a contractor!

Next lesson please.

Steven posted:

So, I throw it back into your court. You come up with "Hard evidence" that licensing does not limit competion and raise prices.

I can no more provide that information than you can to disprove that it limits competition.

Your inclusion of the trades (plumbers, electrictions, HVAC, etc) doesn't wash. Hourly rates, most generaly, are the prevailing (Union) rates, and due to union influence, licensing follows union rules. The hourly rate a business man needs to pay for a union tradesman, is union rate, anything less the worker agrees to he will lose his union status if he works for less.
Called a level playing field. And that does not equate to competion.

Thats not quite the way it works up here. Independent licenced electricians can go and start their own business. The union is for licenced electricians that work in the public utilities which are all union or on private construction projects again unionized. That is the difference between the two and they don't merge, up here at least. So licencing hasn't hindered electricians, and others, it has helped both unionized and non unionized private contractors.

I can offer "text book" economic theory, and if you google, you can check on various business journals on the subject.

Being that you can't prove your side, don't believe I can/did prove my side, then guess licensing does no good on either side of the issue, so why have licensing???

Down here, union members can leave the union and start their own business, but are "encouraged", make that: (required if they want to remain a member in good standing), to hire only union members, AND PAY THEM UNION SCALE.

Any union member that leaves union jobs, for jobs in the private sector, are NOT "allowed" to work for less than the union rate.

Now, if you have to have a state license, follow union/state licensing requirements, which requires a higher wage rate than the private sector is willing to pay, then what do you have? State backed (by licensing) protection of wages for a select group!!!

Thus, two things have occured here. A state sanctioned reduction of the supply (labor), Exclusion of others that may work for less. That along with an increase in cost to the consumer due to the additional cost of that labor.

All of the above, the unintended consequences of licensing, being in the bed with the unions, (also associations) that does not serve the consumer at all.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Steven posted:

I can no more provide that information than you can to disprove that it limits competition.



Thats not quite the way it works up here. Independent licenced electricians can go and start their own business. The union is for licenced electricians that work in the public utilities which are all union or on private construction projects again unionized. That is the difference between the two and they don't merge, up here at least. So licencing hasn't hindered electricians, and others, it has helped both unionized and non unionized private contractors.

I would have to state that up here in my province that the licenced trades and regulated professions have been very good at ensuring public confidence and satisfaction. They have not restricted the profession only improved and strengthened fwiw.

Cheers,

Then, if it does as intended, you have a good license bill.
What works up there, may not work down here.

Seems the national push for licensing here in the states, is a "one size fits all" approach.

What's good and works for New York, may not work in California. etc.

Each state, and in your case province, should be able to determine their own licensing needs, with out un due outside influence and interfearance.

Don't know/judge your situation up there, just know how things work in my own back yard.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I would have to state that up here in my province that the licenced trades and regulated professions have been very good at ensuring public confidence and satisfaction. They have not restricted the profession only improved and strengthened fwiw.

Cheers,

RAYMOND, by the law of averages you have finally come up with something I can agree with you on!!!

IS YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?
The short answer is NO!

Having been a independent insurance adjuster/investigator (just out of college, years ago), my experience is thus:

Insurance companies are a for profit business, and by that very nature, cut and run, to protect its bottom line, with out any regard to the policy holder, and the impact such a decision is to the bottom line of the policy holder.

They settle cases quickly, to cut costs and any possible futu.re liability on their part, even thou the claim has no merit. This, to keep their "books clean of setasides of possible negative outcomes". To many unsettled cases on their books, looks bad on wall street and can impact their stock price.

Many a claim that we adjusters worked on were with out merit, but our recommendation to decline it, more often than not, was over ruled by the underwriters.

Depending on the claim (in dollars) it was much cheaper to hammer out a out of court settlement than the cost of defending the claim. This is a plantiff Attorneys dream,and what they count on, quick settlement, no court time, quick buck.

This attitude on the part of the insurance industry, rolling over on claims,to the delight of the bottom feeder attorneys, is what keeps these claims so profitable for these attorneys. (look at/consider just how the attorneys can afford full page yellow page ads!!!)

If the insurance companies would fight to the end those claims that have no merit, It would put plantiff attorneys on notice: They had better have a strong case or they won't recover. You would find that the marginal/bogus claims would go away, as no attorney is going to put time, effort, money into a case he can't win in court. And be assured, the last thing the attorney wants to do is go to court, time involved cuts into his quick buck format, and takes time away from the easy quick settlements. Keep in mind, these attorneys work on a % of the recovery, and "front" all court costs. No recovery, no money!!!

Yes, fighting these cases would be "expensive" for the insurance companies, but only in the short run. In the long run,as noted above, once these meritless cases are lost in court, attorneys lose their time and money, all this nonsense would come to a halt.

One other point, some insurance regulation (Raymond, you know how I feel about government, but will make an exception with this) may be needed. That is if a insurance company decides to settle your case that is with out merit, just to protect their bottom line, then the least they can do is to also pick up the cost of your deductable (and not ding you for a claim nor up your rates or cancel your policy)

Read your policy, they are to defend you against claims, and any loses that incur. It's the "defend you" part of their insurance contract that I, or any one should have a problem with.

So, when you get a claim against you, DO NOT depend on the insurance company to look out for YOUR best interest. Just ain't going to happen!!!



Insurance, by its very defination, is to insure against losses caused by the policy holder

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Government only messes it up?

In my opinion its been the insurers messing up by paying out rather than fighting many of these cases as it is financially prudent for them to do so. Then they are quick to label the inspector as a bad risk. The government can only created bad legislation, thats why it is imperative inspectors who are under the sights of licencing had better make certain they are heard, this does not always appear to be the case from what I am seeing, but thats my take on it for what its worth.

Cheers,

Thanks Steve, a good read. You'll be agreeing a lot more I think.

Many a claim that we adjusters worked on were with out merit, but our recommendation to decline it, more often than not, was over ruled by the underwriters.

Been there done that.

In my opinion E&O insurance has become an expensive warranty program, when its true purpose is to protect the inspector from being found 'negligent' in the rendering of a home inspection.

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Hagarty

It is a good thing that Phil Hinman and NACHI were involved.
The crock you call Poor Licensing is rated by ASHI as the 2nd Best in the Nation.

ASHI's 2007 State Rankings
Below are ASHI's 2007 rankings of state regulations governing the home
inspection industry....
1. Louisiana
2. New Jersey

See that, you agree with me without realizing it!

New Jersey USED to be #1 until NACHI, Lorraine & Phil cried foul.

It just goes to show how poor other state licensing is.

Originally Posted by Harvey Hempelstern

A consumer who fought to change an existing HI licensing law to minimize a part of the damage it caused consumers....Lorraine Hutton....is a far cry from a consumer pushing for or advocating the need for a licensing law where one does not presently exist.

It has never happened.

Not once in any of the 32 legislative (registration, licensing, etc) actions across the country has a consumer or consumer group led the fight ..... or even participated.

Licensing is a scam.

Don't you just love when people 1,000 miles away think they know what's happening in someone elses backyard.

NACHI got Lorraine involved in NJ to REDUCE the requirements for licensing.
The cry was it's too hard to get a license, there won't be enough inspectors to do the job, thereby slowing down the process of homebuyers.
All because most (I didn't say all, Most) NACHI inspectors couldn't get a license because they weren't experienced and they didn't want to go thru the 300 hrs and the mentoring.
Oh yeah, (Lorraines quote) "more inspectors means more competition means lower cost to the homebuyer."



Get you facts straight JAMES!

By the way, the senator who helped get the licensing lowered is serving time for numerous wrongdoings

James is busy right now over on the NACHO board pontificating that licencing is a scam, and that ASHI is a scam, and the government is a scam and that his birth was a scam...

I am sure he will be over here soon enough with his soap box along with his shadow Harvey Hemplestern!

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

Don't you just love when people 1,000 miles away think they know what's happening in someone elses backyard.

NACHI got Lorraine involved in NJ to REDUCE the requirements for licensing.
The cry was it's too hard to get a license, there won't be enough inspectors to do the job, thereby slowing down the process of homebuyers.
All because most (I didn't say all, Most) NACHI inspectors couldn't get a license because they weren't experienced and they didn't want to go thru the 300 hrs and the mentoring.
Oh yeah, (Lorraines quote) "more inspectors means more competition means lower cost to the homebuyer."



Get you facts straight JAMES!

By the way, the senator who helped get the licensing lowered is serving time for numerous wrongdoings

Darren, I fear that you are the one deficient in facts.

You are trying to argue that New Jersey reflects an instance where consumers worked to pass a licensing law....when that never happened.

In your example, you provide as to how a consumer and NACHI rewrote the law.

While you report that it is a lousy law (as all of them are, IMO) I do find it amusing that the law you report to have been written by NACHI is ranked second....number two.....nbext one to top of the list.....by ASHI.

LOL

Oh, the irony of it all.

Joe,
We don't have your crystal ball here in Kansas. We do however have a bill, poorly written, that has made it through the house and is now OUT of the Senate committee heading to the Senate floor. Lest a miracle happens a bad bill is about to become law in Kansas. Please let us know where you get your info so we can use your source to our benefit.
Thanks
Michael