If you can support the use of he words "key components" in that comment, we might have a more fruitful discussion.
I think a person ( or family ) should be able to sue a medical professional in cases involving gross negligence resulting in injury or death. But I agree that we have become far too litigious in this nation and that overall medical costs are adversly influenced as a result.
I lived in Japan for a decade. Medical malpractice suits exist there....but they are far less common. They have figured it out, somehow.
Watakushi wa Nihon e ikimashita. 1973. Exchange student. Love that country.
We can't or shouldn't eliminate all lawsuits, and equilibrium is always critical. Right now, so much superfluous diagnostic testing is done just to avoid lawsuits that it's become a caricature. Plus, in Mac1958's version of our health care system, a robust private insurance industry would supplement a basic Medicare For All chassis, so health care consumers would still need protection.
And yes, there would be many key components to mitigating costs, tort reform is just one.
.
Soo desu ka. Ore wa Hirakata-shi no Kansai Gaidai ni ikimashita. Anata wa doko de sumimashita ka.
Your system sounds a lot like that of Japan's. For those who care:
Health Care Abroad: Japan - NYTimes.com
I think you're asking where I lived. I was on Sado Island, a little rice patty just west of the middle of Honshu.
The free market Medicare supplemental system is already in place, of course, with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans. The private fee for service (PFFS) Medicare Advantage plans won't work because they're too costly to operate, but the PPO and HMO plans provide far more coverage than regular Medicare at less cost, so this would be an easy transition. Let the people choose their supplemental coverage.
Two keys to my brilliant plan: First, the cost of health care delivery must be significantly reduced. That's where we talk about tort reform, a more robust national electronic records system, stuff like that. Second, doctor reimbursement would have to increase, since Medicare reimburses a fraction of what insurance companies do. So between increased reimbursement and cost mitigation, doctors and other providers need to be able to do what they do.
One MASSIVE savings to my brilliant plan would be the elimination of most Medicaid costs, since we would all have the same foundational plan. There would probably need to be some money to assist with supplemental coverage, something like that.
More money needed? A 1% to 5% across the board tax may be needed. Horrors. We already have a Medicare payroll tax. And speaking of payroll taxes, imagine how much pressure this plan would take off employers' backs. Let that one sink in a bit.
So:
1.
Significant cost mitigation and savings strategy
2. Acceptable provider reimbursement schedules
3. Medicare For All chassis to improve overall health and lower costs
4. Robust free market supplemental insurance program
I have no doubt my brilliant plan would piss off folks on both ends of the spectrum, which I generally consider to be a hopeful sign.
.
