My point is, when there was a human-to-human relationship between the family physician and the family members, there were no lawsuits. The family physician, even if he screwed up, was known for having tried his best, was at the wake, and cried at the funeral as loud as any mourner - and meant it. Once health care delivery became an emotion-free action, and "Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith and young Johnny" became "the patients in Examining Rooms A, B & C," whose relationship with the physician was a brief encounter after an hour in a waiting room, the physician became as faceless as the insurance company, and given the same amount of leeway.

The medical industry, in finding a way to be more profitable by greater "office efficiency," also acquired an additional liability in that the leeway given to the Dr. Welby's of old was lost in the bottom line. It was a perfect example of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." A "wall" was created between the physician and the customer/patient where that "have a cup of coffee after the home visit - which friends do" was replaced with the medical experience having as much human sensitivity as an oil change at Jiffy Lube. That "wall" between health care provider and recipient is the problem - and it's that "wall" that has made medical malpractice as much of an item on the health care scene as Viagra commercials.

And VK - yes I think the health care matter is one for the states, not the fed. There is nothing wrong with different states trying different ways to better the lives of their citizenry. Several states already have health risk pools for uninsurables (see http://www.healthinsurance.org/risk_pools/ ), several also have either enacted or in the process of enacting their own version of health care reform (see http://www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu_statehealthreform.cfm ), and the experiences from these efforts give the rest of the states an opportunity to see what's best for them based on real data, and not just on political hyperbole. The fed always ends up with a "one size fits all" solution, and it usually fits no one other than those within the DC beltway who get rich off it. So, unless we want another TARP and bailout "the bill is too long and confusing, so I'll just vote for it and hope for the best," the states are still the best bet to get it right for what works with their constituencies. And since the states already are in the medical oversight business via licensing and other regulation, it's better to work within one existing body of law than try adding more layers.