In a common refrain, potential competitors in a marketplace are being attacked by incumbents using the "we need to keep them out to keep our consumers safe" argument.
The proposal would change state law to allow for “oral health practitioners” — dental hygienists who would be trained under a new master’s degree program that would be offered by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. After passing state exams and receiving their license, oral health practitioners would be able to perform some of the duties that can now be done only by dentists.
The Minnesota Dental Hygienists Association and other supporters of the plan say it would alleviate a shortage of dental care in rural Minnesota and among low-income groups while reducing the cost of dental care. But the proposal has run into intense opposition from dental associations that insist the original legislation was potentially dangerous and an unnecessary change in the way dental services have traditionally been provided in America.
But, you see, it's all about customer care and the quality of the product. But no mention is made of the dental associations' attempt to maintain a measure of market power by the heavy hand of government. Dental hygienists are trying to knock down a barrier to entry so they can enter the market and compete with dentists. This means lower prices and wider-ranging and better service. But it also means lower profits for the incumbents.
So the dentists "get involved" via their lobbyists in the name of quality, although I have no reason to believe that allowing competition will actually *decrease* the quality of dental care that's available. It is no more than "getting involved" to direct public policy for private gain.