patrick.net

What is Obama doing to reduce frivolous lawsuits in healthcare that result in defensive medicine, that in turn result in sky high costs.
Come on Obama, I like you, stop being an asshole.

As is typical, the proposal would mainly increase taxes and co-payments while keeping the program mandatory. If he really wanted to save $, he'd make it optional and switch from fee-for-service to a fee-for-diagnosis system at prices that are competitive globally.

Strategist says

lawsuits in healthcare that result...

in a total of 2% of total medical spending. The issue in this country is the combination of unlimited money on the "fee for service" model and an entrepreneurial culture that puts profits ahead of patients; as Texas showed, "tort reform" enables even more spending by aligning providers' incentives all one way: overutilization of more "services" for more fees. Other countries have accountability for malpractice, but they don't have our costs.

curious2 says

lawsuits in healthcare that result...

in a total of 2% of total medical spending. Other countries have more accountability for malpractice, but they don't have our price structure.

That 2% is a total cost of the lawsuits? If so, the real cost of defensive medicine that result in unnecessary tests and surgeries would take our costs sky high.

The unnecessary tests and surgeries result from the fee-for-service model. It happens even more in jurisdictions with "tort reform," e.g. Texas. That's why I linked to the New Yorker article. 2% is the total for malpractice awards, and besides most of that cost is shifted by insurance anyway so the careful doctors pay the same premiums as the butchers and poisoners. The problem is the vast $$$ that can be made by unnecessary tests and procedures, which drives ever more of them, and a mandatory insurance scheme that presents them as a "benefit," "free preventive care," even when they are of no benefit.