> But if someone steals your car, the government won't put $30k in your account for a new one.
I understand your point and get that you didn't say this to argue with what I've said. I just want to emphasize that the situation here is different.
Here, though, we have a situation where people who are significantly harmed medically try and find malpractice even if none occurred, and juries are usually sympathetic. The consequence is medicine has become a much more defensive and adversarial system.
I'm sure that an effort to insure for morbidity from bad outcomes will cause fraud, but it might also save a lot of malpractice litigation costs and reduce the amount of resources spent on defensive medicine, too.
I understand your point and get that you didn't say this to argue with what I've said. I just want to emphasize that the situation here is different.
Here, though, we have a situation where people who are significantly harmed medically try and find malpractice even if none occurred, and juries are usually sympathetic. The consequence is medicine has become a much more defensive and adversarial system.
I'm sure that an effort to insure for morbidity from bad outcomes will cause fraud, but it might also save a lot of malpractice litigation costs and reduce the amount of resources spent on defensive medicine, too.