>Do you truly think that when a doctors' practice is forced to pay outrageously high insurance premium, because of no-limit for malpractice lawsuits, it reduces the number of malpractice cases? By the way, the tv channels are full of ads by law firms basically "suggesting" to people how they can get money in malpractice cases. So I wonder how many of the quoted "100,000" cases are "fabricated". Maybe lawyers are all at fault? <g>

Lawyers will destroy civilization :).

The 100000 cases are official statistics of people who died of medical error. The previous number I remember was 90000, but that was a decade ago. The lawsuits are probably related more to those who survived :).

Waving the problem of malpractice suits in front of any discussion about the state of health industry is a nice red herring, though - as if the same problem doesn't exist in many other areas (i.e. wherever lawyers detected money to be siphoned through their pockets).

>And as far as you opting out of both, it is fine, your decision. Until you need (and I don't wish on you) some serious medical care. Then you will pay for it anyway. See, you say "I have no intention to help either" but I see it as "paying to help them" but rather paying for "help me" (if it is necessary).

I'd rather pay the doctor directly, without middlem... middlepersons skimming us both.

> I buy life insurance too but you will say that I just help the insurance company <g>.

In this case, you don't really know. If they screwed you, you won't care. And won't be there to argue with them.