There is a fact that is never mentioned when discussing Obamacare that I think needs a larger airing: much of "medical" costs have to do with the liability exposure that doctors face treating patients. The lawyers are the reason that doctors practice defensive medicine, preforming tests that fall in the realm of no-sparrow-shall-fall diagnostics and treatments. I witnessed this very thing when I had a heart attack -- my insurance company said that a good number of the tests done on me were "unnecessary". Right. The doctor thought they were necessary. And I never got to weigh in on the discussion. So I'm still paying off the uninsured portion of my treatment, which is 52 percent of the total.
There is a solution, but conservatives won't like it much: have the insurance company share the liability. If the insurance company refuses to cover a procedure, then that fact should be part of any litigation.
There is a solution, but conservatives won't like it much: have the insurance company share the liability. If the insurance company refuses to cover a procedure, then that fact should be part of any litigation. Part of the pharmaceutical promotion to medicine is because of the "sharing the blame" from doctors just to keep their financial heads above water IMO.
Freedom from Tort would be seen as a major step in improving health care.