Mandated coverage laws should raise the cost of coverage, why wouldn't they? Are we going to allow insurance companies to get away without providing essential services? Especially since most people get insurance from their employer, they don't always have much of a choice in the insurance they get. Do we not need these services that are being mandated, and why would someone use more of a mandated service, versus a non-mandated service?The primary reason why health care is expensive is because of government subsidies and other government policies like mandated coverage. Most states have a list of required procedures that insurers must provide like birth control. These mandates automatically increase premiums and once you have the insurance, you're going to want to use that service whether or not you really need it. This drives up consumption and cost as well.
Malpractice lawsuits don't seem to be as much of an issue in countries with socialized medicine, and republicans don't seem to be lining up to solve this either (except they keep saying tort reform is something we need, man I really wish someone would get on this tort reform issue). Yes, malpractice insurance makes healthcare more expensive, and it will always be that way. There's no evidence that tort reform will reduce it by much, and there's no evidence to implicate democrats over republicans in this matter. (unless you have any hidden away?)Malpractice insurance is very expensive (over $100K/year) and 1 in 14 doctors get sued for malpractice each year. Unfortunately, the Democrats refused to address tort reform because trial lawyers are a major donor. If a doctor has to spend $100K on malpractice insurance, do you think he's going to raise prices or lower prices?