Healthcare costs are not unreasonable in much of the developed and developing world. Most countries have better outcomes and lower costs than here in the US. As another commentor says, healthcare seems to be doing fine; you seem to be assuming the US is the norm when it isn’t.
> Healthcare costs are not unreasonable in much of the developed and developing world. Most countries have better outcomes and lower costs than here in the US. As another commentor says, healthcare seems to be doing fine; you seem to be assuming the US is the norm when it isn’t.
I'm going to cauterize the off-topic debate about the US healthcare system by pointing out that OP was talking about the expense to doctors of malpractice insurance, not about costs to the patients or medical outcomes.
Malpratice liability varies widely by country, but it's a non-trivial expense for doctors everywhere, and significantly higher in states with strong tort liability for doctors.
It's hard to imagine a world with criminal liability (or tort liability) for software engineers that doesn't ultimately end up with a system of insurance for engineers, roughly analogous to the medical malpractice insurance system for physicians.
I am afraid that you are introducing the off-topic debate. The end goal of healthcare is better outcomes for lower prices. Likewise, the end goal of engineering should be better technology for lower costs.
That healthcare in other countries is able to achieve this in spite of the medical malpractice insurance system points to the fact that such a system is not certain have to have the deleterious effects you confidently assume.
Whether it is a burden for engineers is another question. But the article and the discussion aren’t about the inconveniences faced by the engineers who programmed this system.
Which, as someone else noted, exists and is probably a good idea if you're an independent consultant or possibly a professional (i.e. licensed) engineer who signs off on drawings or other documents for clients or regulators.
