>>It's also worth noting how much of health care cost is due to legal liability. I find it ironic that a political party so heavily funding by trial lawyers is hoped for as the savior of health care. Ask John Edwards why there are so many Ceasarians performed in the US. No political party's hands are clean on this and I certainly would be in favor of universal health insurance and serious clinical preventive care outreach, but until there is tort reform it is very unlikely costs are going to be able to be reduced significantly.
>
>I truly believe that I've heard/read that HMOs are basiclly immune from (most?) malpractice suits.
>
>Is that incorrect?
>

Perhaps HMOs are less vulnerable to successful suits because a 'member' agrees in advance to some arbitration procedures etc but that doesn't mean they can't be harrassed by anyone who knows how to file the papers. ( but I do think that is one approach to lowering costs by decreasing exposure to litigation )

No one is immune from any suit in American tort law. You can be sued for anything by anyone at any time. But if you have insurance against whatever you are going to get sued for you can bet you'll be sued a lot quicker, becuase everyone settles and all the lawyers walk away rich and the demand for the insurance goes up.

Of course, hospitals etc have little choice but to play the game but it is not unknown for individual practicioners have been known to go without malpractice insurance to make themselves less attractive targets.