A lot of the rest of the reasons are carrying the deadweight of administering regulation, and dancing with the existing and prospective malpractice suits that randomly benefit the system sometimes, but always cost everybody, and warp the practice of medicine and patient healthcare experiences.

▲

nradov an hour ago | parent [-]

So what's the solution? Some states have already limited malpractice liability but that hasn't done much to hold down costs. When patients are harmed by preventable medical errors they should be compensated.

	▲	cwmoore 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The solution is NOT to decide on one problem at a time to all agree on solving by incremental compromise, or trust free market competition driving what is in reality a non-free market. Most patients never file a lawsuit, even if things don't go well, and most injuries that aren't deaths or newsworthy are not worth the trouble to an "overburdened" court system itself imposing a lot of burdens. And the quality life years lost waiting to share a verdict with attorneys ought to count for everyone affected, not just those who spearhead a trial by catastrophe. I think the solution is to make the practice of medicine more scientific, and less dominated by competitive incentives, but as long as research and development, reform, or even consumer choice, is strictly a cost, that will be considered "too expensive", if not "too risky".