“but this doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate that the system isn’t working well. ”

This depends on how one defines “well”, doesn’t it? We can probably agree on some flaws. However, the solutions proposed by physicians do not seem designed to address the flaws I’ve seen you identify. They seemed solely designed to protect your insurers and make it difficult for people to pursue claims, regardless of legitimacy.

Take the “English Rule”, for example. Putting aside the fact that it doesn’t really work as you believe it to, even in England, it is designed solely for the purpose of limiting claims by the poor. Oddly though, while physicians are always quick to adopt European legal systems, they don’t want to adopt European medical systems – why is that?

While I might be able to detect emotional flaws in my specific care, such as communication and attentiveness, I would hardly be in a position to comment on the process of how you perform the specifically medical aspects of your work. And certainly not to extrapolate my individual experience to medicine as a whole. I can tell good food from bad, but I can’t necessary tell you if the taste is the result of the cooking temperature, the combination of spices, or the source of ingredients. And that would relate only to my specific experience, not all of society.

Again, if you think insurers settle often and easily, well, then you clearly aren’t in a position to discuss the economics of the practice of law or propose reforms.

These statements make me chuckle. Do you physicians not deal with insurance companies? Haven’t you even had to file class actions which have netted hundreds of millions just to get them to honor their contracts with you?

So why on earth do you think they throw tons of money at any lawyer who files a claim? Have you EVER settled a claim with an insurer?

Your statement reflects your complete lack of understanding of the practice of law, particularly a med mal practice. Which is not surprising, since you literally have no experience in that field. Not only that, you also clearly haven’t dealt with many liability carriers.

Nice sentiment, but it ignores the reality of how insurers work. And it makes the assumption that money in the insurance industry would be transferred to healthcare. Which makes little sense.

” which trial lawyers too often try to leverage by using a threat of a “big judgment” in pre-trial settlement negotiations”

Only someone who has never tried a case makes such silly assumptions. Why do physicians think they have a system they know next to nothing about all figured out, and that jurors are so stupid? Is it just inherent arrogance?

“The current tort system sucks for both doctors and patients in its very poor ability to select out the cases with merit The only group that seems to benefit consistently from such a system is the trial lawyers.”

Your first point is right. Yet none of your “reform” has anything to do with paying more meritorious cases faster. It’s all dedicated to keeping people from getting paid. So, your criticism is a little deceptive. Particularly since that’s exactly what lower pays (the English Rule which you clearly know little about) is designed to do. Scare off the poor from filing if they don’t know they have a slam dunk long before they file.

To hear you wax poetic about justice while trying to close the courthouse doors to the less fortunate is a little sickening.