I would move in the direction of controlling costs. Formulate changes and implement them in small doses as a test. Test in some markets banning lawyers from advertising on TV trolling for people who are looking for something for nothing. See if malpractice ins. rates drop and the value of service improves. This is real work I'm talking about not a one size fits all bill concocted before a 3 martini lunch by fat cat legislators. At the same time new emphasis on policing of the medical community. Incentives to control costs rather thatn punitvie damages that require more gov. agencies to check up on. What works you keep or tweak. What fails you can dump before it is implemented nationwide. The health care industry should look at NASCAR and their ability to make changes to tweak competition and control costs for teams. For a big sanctoning body they make changes quite rapidly. Now I know thats very simplistic but why not look to the private industry to solve issues rather that a gov. agency .

If the purpose of medical help is to assist those who need it - then figure out what system guarantees that.

IMO - the market approach only works for those whom the market serves.
Which is fine for non-necessities, but not for the big stuff.

__________________
Freedom is free - oppression costs money.

define " big stuff"