You think the solution is tort reform? Malpractice insurance wouldn’t be so high if there wasn’t so much malpractice.
But to your point, a free market where a person makes an informed choice about their doctor is the best approach. And that informed choice would include how much insurance they carry and how far along the scale on qualifications the doctor is.
A new doctor with few quals and low insurance is gonna be cheaper. Market forces start contributing to the balance.
There is not a lot of malpractice — there are a lot of scum sucking bottom dwelling attorneys that take flimsy cases on a contingency basis. When it cost nearly $250,000 to try a malpractice case, when an insurance company gets a cost of defense settlement offer for say $100k, they consider themselves 150k ahead and control their costs
The attorney takes 33% -> essentially 33,000 for a few nasty letters and the plaintiff takes $67,000.
The fact of the matter is that this the largest contribution cost to modern medicine as there is so much defensive medicine that drives the costs of healthcare up.
There is nothing that is market forced in this medical system — the government has assured that. I happen to agree with you that a purely free market system should exist that includes torts should be paid for by plaintiff. If a plaintiff had to shell out a retainer of $50,000 for a complaint and summons you would see an immediate drop in malpractice litigation.
Obviously you have bought into the Morgan and Morgan definition of malpractice, not the actual legal definition.