Tort reform would be unnecessary if proper contracts were in place.
Doctors could simply refuse to provide service unless a contract was signed that specified a set payout in the event of a malpractice event. Doctors could set the limit and self-insure that amount if they wanted too.
Such contracts are not upheld in medical care; hence, why malpractice costs are so out of control.
Such contracts might also create a secondary market.
For example, a doctor might provide an exculpatory contract that prevents you from suing him in the event of malpractice - BUT - you as an individual could then purchase your own malpractice insurance to cover you in the event that the doctor screws up.
This way if you want SUPER cheap care, you could visit a doctor that provides no coverage if he screws up - and the choice is YOURS if you want to take out malpractice coverage before seeing him or not.
What say you? And why have I not read more articles on this?
I seem to remember Ron Paul discussing the idea of negative outcome insurance. So if a baby has CP instead of suing the doctor you’d already have insurance in case something like that happened.
This is actually one of if not the most depressing part of the insane healthcare system that exists in the USA today. And it is entirely the product of depriving individuals of the right to make contracts that lead to saving their own lives. Lawyers who run the government and become judges have judged that an individuals right to sue is more important than the life of the individual. So they (Lawyers and Judges) use the force of government to prohibit individuals from trading their right to sue for cash or for lower prices on their medical care. The results make for a health care disaster. Providers must buy extremely expensive insurance to protect themselves against lawsuits from individuals who do not want to sue them. So providers are limited on pricing their care and must charge for enough care to pay the insurance company FIRST, staff second, themselves third. Then individuals have no incentive to seek their own insurance against medical malfeasance in the same manner they purchase insurance against damages by uninsured drivers. So individuals are prohibited from making an agreement with a doctor where the doctor charges less for the individual giving up their right to see future damages. Consequently the market for patience insuring against provider malfeasance dissolves.
The end results are that doctors must charge higher prices to patients to cover their insurance costs and patients must pay these prices although they could negotiate lower rates by giving up the right to sue.
In a free world individuals would have range of choices from taking the lowest price and giving up all ability to sue, to buying their own insurance against provider malfeasance, to giving up a partial right to sue, to not yielding at all. So individuals, providers and insurance companies would be better off in a free system. But the politicians, lawyers and other rent seekers would PROBABLY be worse off.