@Cruiser I am actually a strong proponent of both the suggestions you offer for cost control. But they are not either going to be a major player in cutting cost unless you do them in such a way to make an already terrible system even worse.
Torte reform needs to be done, but accounts for less than 1% of healthcare costs. And just eliminating the ability to sue would ensure that hospitals would soon operate like Enron and our friends on Wall Street. I’d just as soon go to Blackwater for treatment as go to a hospital that knew it and its doctors could treat me in the most negligent fashion possible, charge me whatever they wanted for half-killing me, and there would be nothing I could do about it.
So tort reform has to come with careful protections to weed out junk lawsuits and exempt doctors from having to order useless batteries of tests to protect themselves from liability, but at the same time ensure that real malpractice is still punished and its victims compensated. Do that, and the savings are unsubstantial.
Selling insurance across state lines is a decent idea, but will not have a major impact on cost. 95% of the health-insurance sold today is already controlled by 6 holding corporations. They already de-facto do operate across state lines, but the exemption from fair trade laws which would have to be stripped to allow pure cross-state sales would drive costs up, not down.
Why does the insurance cartel want cross-state sales and have their Republican water-carriers lobbying so hard for it? They can then buy up the state legislature of some small, low-tax state, have that state’s laws amended so they can sell even worse insurance with even more loopholes at even higher prices, and watch their profits sail through the roof.
If you even think about doing this, you have to put insurance regulation in the hands of a national commission. And I guarantee you Republicans (and their owners in the insurance cartel) would fight such a commission with nuclear weapons if needed.