IT'S not too often that you get to laugh out loud when listening to the news – especially these days.
But I did have a good old guffaw at reports that "a major new survey has found that, over the past 12 months, 76% of Irish dentists in private practice – more than three out of four – have had to treat patients for problems linked to the dental treatment they received abroad".

The report was carried out on behalf of... yes, you've guessed it, the Irish Dental Association.

And, according to the IDA, the findings "reinforced concerns about the quality of dental care being received abroad". They warned: "We're seeing a lot of people returning home with problems which are directly related to the quality of the care they received abroad. Common problems include too much dental work being done over too short a time frame, unnecessary work being done and poor materials being used by dentists abroad." Yada, yada.

One of the problems, according to the IDA, is that "when considering travelling abroad for dental treatment, patients tended to focus on short-term, aesthetic results rather than the long-term quality of the care they received, and that the lure of 'bargain' prices meant that patients were less concerned about the need for different treatments than the cost of them; it's been estimated that as many as 44% of people travelling abroad for dental treatment actually don't know what they need when they enquire about costs". Hmmmm.

Just where do you start with that research? How about the old Mandy Rice Davis line – well, they would say that wouldn't they? And what's next: three out of four turkeys say that Christmas is a bad idea?

The reason that there is dental tourism is that dentistry prices are too high in this state and people are voting with their teeth. And this isn't just anecdotal evidence (of which there is plenty). In 2007, the Competition Authority called for significant reform of the dental system stating that a lack of competition was pushing up prices, with Irish consumers paying above the odds.

The authority concluded that competition was restricted and discouraged by an "outdated system of regulation". Dentists could not advertise prices, give discounts, or canvas for customers.

It went on to say that consumers do not have the option of going directly to qualified hygienists and technicians for services and dentures, and the number of professionals being trained is not sufficient for the demand that is there.

I'd love to know what 76%, or more than three out of four, dentists made of that. Two years on, of the 12 recommendations made by the Competition Authority, just two (one of which was the removal of restrictions on advertising) have been implemented.

But to be fair, dentists aren't the only group that have been on the proverbial pig's (or should that be consumer's?) back. All the professions – doctors, lawyers, accountants and pharmacists – have been at it.

In Germany, consultants get paid €100,000 a year, whereas in Ireland they get a multiple of that figure – why? And why should I first have to go to a GP – likely to cost €60 – before I can see a consultant, even if I know exactly what's wrong with me?

Legal costs are immorally high in this state with the cost of going to court a serious restriction on the proper administration of justice. The profession is riddled with anti-competitive practices. Why can a barrister only be hired by a solicitor and not a member of the public? Why can only solicitors engage in conveyancing? Why can't employed barristers represent their employers in court? Why are junior counsel fees set at two-thirds of a senior counsel's? In fact, why are there senior and junior counsels at all? Why have the King's Inn and the Law Society got a monopoly on the training of barristers and solicitors respectively? Why is there no incentive to expedite cases through the courts to speed up the current torturous timetable? And why are barristers still allowed to wear silly and outdated wigs and gowns?

The list goes on and on. And in many cases it is the taxpayer that is the biggest loser (in that respect the government is quite right to introduce means-testing on free legal aid).

Pharmacists thankfully were faced down by the government in the recent dispute but one only has to buy a box of paracetamol across the border in the North to appreciate the mark-up that exists on drug prices in this state.

One of the (admittedly very few) benefits of the economic crisis we find ourselves in is that we have a rare opportunity to effectively start again. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Successive governments and, it has to be said, we as consumers, have turned a blind eye as blatantly anti-competitive practices resulted in the average punter paying well over the odds for various services. The appetite simply was not there in good times to take on these well financed, and often quite powerful, interest groups.

But that can no longer be the case. We, as individuals and as a state, can no longer afford to pay over the top prices to professions who feel it is their God-given right to charge as they see fit.

I haven't done any survey but I'm guessing that 76% of ordinary hard-pressed consumers – more than three out of four – would agree with me. It's time the political parties followed suit.