>I understand what you say, but it relies on the Socialist principle that there is a pot of money from which armchair lawyers can sup without consequence. But there isn't. It would be like suing the unemployed man for failing to make his mortgage payments for 6 months. After the secured creditors take their share, there's nothing left to attack.

You know that and I know that but lawmakers who have bloviated about the need for "health care reform" while taking money with both hands from the trial lawyers lobby (one of the consistently largest contributors to the Democratic party) may know but certainly choose to ignore it. It is the reason that the righteousness of those who drove through Obamacare had something of a falseness to it for me.

Since I am sure you are knowledgeable about the situation of doctors in a number of countries, do you know if doctors practicing in NZ, OZ or UK have to carry the kind of malpractice insurance that doctors and hospitals do in the US or if there are any restrictions on suits and potential damage?

My understanding here is that the largest expenses are in settling claims just to make them go away. It is an art form on the part of lawyers to know the magic number that will result in an instant payoff with virtually no work involved. Lawyer convinces aggrieved party to make a claim on a contingency fee basis (no risk to claimant) against an insured (or very deep pockets) entity. Entity's legal team says it will cost $nK to litigate with potential downside. Claimant agrees to settle for $nK - $xK . Lawyer for claimant gets third to half of settlement for simply doing some paperwork. It is an industry.