>>The litigation didn't make health industry expensive. Litigation came upon it because it was full of money. Nobody sues a shoe shine boy.
>
>But the litigation was predicated on insurance and the insurance industry is excellent at keeping premium income ahead of risk. So insurance companies make more money from a scared medical industry and lawyers make it from everyone. And what does that have to do with quality medical care.

It's a positive feedback loop. I just said that the litigation didn't start this, but of course it isn't helping. The damage is on several levels - not only are insurance companies and lawyers getting blatantly rich on expense of everyone else, but the noble idea of judiciary somehow protecting Joe Q from big guys' malfeasance is turned on its head here, and when Joe Q sues his doctor, he's actually screwed second time over by his lawyer (who won't leave with mere 3% of the damages, oh no), and will be screwed the third time when this litigation is used as an excuse to practically ban any class lawsuits. Today it's the telephone companies ratting out on you and if it goes as GW2B proposes you can only "spit under their window" (a Serbian proverb, meaning you can't do anything meaningful). Next, you won't be able to sue Stereosanto even if you begin losing organs because of their poisoning of just about everything, you won't be able to sue your favorite poison maker, because we've seen what damage is Vioxx string of lawsuits doing to the competitiveness of pharmarket, and all this litigation has already killed GM and Ford, and you can't find a good chrysler anymore - nobody dares chrysle for fear of a lawtuxedo.

>Look at how John Edwards made his money and why any hospital now runs very expensive CYA tests to protect from all future litigation. ( or, in the case of the case where Edwards got rich, they do Caesarians pre-emptively to prevent being sued ) Look at what malpractice insurance costs for a obstetrician. Do you think those costs are not being passed on?

Just like advertising costs, building security costs, corporate culture maintenance costs, and all sorts of middleman costs.

>>The bet stays. One virtual beer.
>
>I don't doubt that. But I also don't doubt that all the trial lawyers who fund the Dmeocratic Party have invested huge amounts of money in convincing you they are not part of the problem. Seems it worked ;-)

Didn't - actually it backfired. The "lawyer takes 3%" sentence has come to my mind as spoken by a lawyer back home, who was our customer for a bit of an interest calculating app, who was a medium rank weasel, and whose father was politician scum. Now if such a slimy guy was OK with just 3%... where does it put the lawyers here? Which is how I came to a proposal that there should be a limit to the percentage the lawyers in class actions and/or torts are allowed.

I've already heard of cases (California vs Microsoft, maybe?) where the punitive damages were about $20 per participant, who may receive actual $6 each, further $2 would go towards court expenses, and the remainder goes to the lawyers to the tune of a few grand an hour. That's where I'd start the tort reform, by limiting the lawyer cost.

OTOH, I see that the other line of propaganda has somehow convinced many that the tort law as is is the main cause of the price of health [care], and that if we ban class lawsuits, everything would come back to normal. Nice bait, not buying.