On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:40:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:18:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

Cite that.

http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Na...tice-Facts.cfm

There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims.
According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the
number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four
percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995;
84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and
86,480 in 2000.
While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the
amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52
percent over that time.
Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their
investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards,
according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer
Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.

It really doesn't matter anyway. The defendant still gets stuck with a
huge legal bill that shows up in his bills to everyone else.
If they want to fix torts, make them "loser pays" so the plaintiff has
some skin in the game.

that should be the law here as it is in the UK.



and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

I am old enough to remember when we didn't have medical insurance and
I didn't remember people dying in the street.

and medical science has advanced since 1875.