Not at all disingenuous. The attorneys fees for both defense and prosecution of a malpractice claim are a drop in the bucket compared to the premiums charged by the insurance industry. Usually they are done on a contingency fee by the Plaintiff's attorney. He gets nothing if he loses.I carry $1,000,000.00 of coverage. My premium is only $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per year. By comparison my doctor's premium is well over $100,000.00 per year. Multiply that by the number of doctors practicing, add to that the number of years each practices and pays the premium. Only a fraction of them are sued for malpractice, yet they all pay the insurance premiums.

Insofar as the $100.00 hammer analogy is concerned...the fact remains Medicare is alive and well...operating within the confines of current funding. The charge for the $100.00 hammer was illustrative of the price charged to government by private industry. ..In other words price gouging within the free enterprise system. In a more perfect world the perpetrator should have been prosecuted for fraud. We are not buying $100.00 hammers here.

While free enterprise is desireable in most industries because it fosters competition which in turn forsters competitive pricing... such has not resulted with the insurance industry. That supposedly is the reason it is regulated, and rate increases are approved by the state. I think Robert himself indicated that he is struggling to provide health insurance for his employees.

Some employers have elected to set up health care plans for their employees through ERISA as an alternative to dealing with insurance premiums and to take the plan out of the hands of the insurance industry and state regulation.