If I was going to cherry-pick, I would have used 2001 data, when the figure was $1.54. I just had the 2003 data off the top of my head (or thought I did, since I appear to have understated my argument; the figure was $1.39). A full set of data is in my Liability Outlook on the subject. Of course, Matt knew that, too, but has no interest in engaging on the issue in honest grounds, as opposed to trolling.

A shame Character and Fitness committees don’t actually care about character of fitness, or someone might meaningfully report Matt to the bar association for his persistent dishonesty.

Oops, couldn’t resist. Thanks for proving my point about picking snapshots of certain years. I think Mark Twain described the “merits” of your argument already.

Good luck with your advocacy. The last word is yours.

Buffett is in the habit of investing in money-losing businesses, as he will be the first to tell you–he just invests in many more money-making businesses. We’ll see whether Buffett makes a profit with his first investment in medical malpractice insurance; he probably will, because he’s benefiting from the last wave of reform, and can cherry-pick good jurisdictions. Or he might divest with his tail between his legs. It’s not like General Electric is in the habit of divesting itself from highly profitable businesses.

For the medical malpractice insurance industry as a whole, however, they faced $1.375 in claims and expenses for every dollar of premiums taken in in 2003. I don’t know why you think that that’s “highly profitable,” but perhaps they make it up in volume. Of course, you know this, too, but seem to need a reminder.

A shame you can’t debate on the merits, with real data, and have to resort to name-calling. But debating on the merits for you means losing, and winning’s obviously more important than honesty.

I’ve never advocated capping contingent fees. AEI Liability Project actually published a monograph arguing against it. I support reform because I believe in fairness.

You keep making the claims that med mal insurance is not profitable, yet the companies own reports indicate that it is over time. I realize that you can, and do, take snapshots which most benefit your clients, and show their losses, but historically it remains profitable, absent looting by the executives. Again, Warren Buffett is not one to habitually invest in money losers. You’ve yet to refute that rather obvious point, you’ve just chosen to gloss over it and then accuse me of sophistry. Yet another reason I always get a chuckle from reading you.

We both know the point of legal “reform” as you term it. It’s to keep individuals from having access to the courts, and perhaps hold your clients liable. That’s why you don’t propose to limit what your clients can pay their attorneys, only the individual who can ill afford to pay by the hour.

Ted, call yourself what you want, but at the end you’re a lobbyist. You have, both directly and indirectly, been advocating in your clients’ interest throughout your career. Even a cursory review of your resume’ indicates this. You’re very good at it so I have no idea why you act so ashamed to admit it. And I hope you get paid very well for it. You should, as again you’re a very effective advocate for their interests.

And as for your “truthfulness”, if you’re so truthful, why does your website, whose stated goal is “chronicling the high cost of our legal system”, constantly post stories of foreign cases? Is it because you’re a citizen of the world?

If medical-malpractice insurance was a profitable business, we’d see for-profit insurers entering the business, rather than leaving it–or, as in a couple of notorious cases, going bankrupt. To date, conventional insurers have been exiting the field for the most part.

I don’t think lawyers should steal less money by charging their clients less. I think lawyers should steal less money by taking away the incentive for them to steal money in the first place. Hence the need for legal reform.

I forgot that it is pointless to discuss issues with CJD/Matt Bish, because he’s not interested in truthful discourse. He knows that I’m not a lobbyist, and that I would be breaking the law if I were a lobbyist, but persists in his libel after being corrected. Perhaps he’s trying to provoke me into becoming a plaintiff, which I’m sorely tempted to do, since I’d be happy to cap my exemplary damages.

While “very profitable” is a relative term and a poor one admittedly, there is no doubt med mal has been and will continue to be profitable. As any long term view of the industry will show. Obviously, as a lobbyist like yourself well knows, both sides can take snapshots which will support their case, but on the whole it’s a profitable enterprise.

“2) If insurers are not gouging, then the malpractice insurance rates reflect a reasonable competitive price”

“Gouging” is also a poor term. However, under any definition that’s not necessarily true either.

“3) My logic in suggesting lawyers become insurers is simple: lawyers are falsely claiming that insurers are gouging, and that there is no need for reform because the problems are the fault of the insurers. ”

I understand your logic, I’m simply applying it to your own statements. You routinely claim lawyers are getting rich off false claims and runaway juries and actually screwing the victim. If you really believe that, you should take those cases at a reasonable, but still profitable rate, and get the victim more money.

“Insurers improve social utility by selling something people want.”

Actually insurance in most states is required. And if it’s not required by law, it’s often required by third parties. But I do not doubt a lobbyist’s ability to recognize sophistry, so I will defer to your superior knowledge on that point.

1) Medical malpractice insurance has *not* been “very profitable.” Which is why the vast majority of malpractice insurance is issued by non-profit mutual insurers.

2) If insurers are not gouging, then the malpractice insurance rates reflect a reasonable competitive price–and it’s the fault of the attorneys that those prices are so high, because they simply reflect the cost of malpractice insurance. I’m pleased to see CJD make this concession. His namesake with the same initials has yet to do so.

3) My logic in suggesting lawyers become insurers is simple: lawyers are falsely claiming that insurers are gouging, and that there is no need for reform because the problems are the fault of the insurers. If they really believe this, they should compete those extra-high profits away, and simultaneously (a) make a lot of money, (b) reduce insurance costs for doctors, and (c) prove reformers wrong. So far, no one has been willing to do this across the board. All we see is this one example of cherry-picking that will be a useful experiment.

It hardly follows from this that I think everyone should become a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Insurers improve social utility by selling something people want. Plaintiffs’ lawyers decrease social utility when they engage in parasitic transfers of wealth aimed at productive elements of society that have done nothing wrong. CJD knows that his argument is dishonest sophistry, but he continues to make it. Little wonder: he certainly can’t win on the merits.