2. So does the analysis. Aside from the constant harping on free-market capitalism (that would be editorializing, not analysis) he does very little. I see only two points worthy of discussion. First, that anti-trust laws should be leveled against the health insurance industry. Second, that the insurance system imposes a disconnect from buyer and seller. However, no matter the resolution of the above two issues, neither has any bearing whatsoever on your claim that MedMal insurance (which, by the way, your link doesn't even mention) is the "rudder" of the medical industry.
See, perfect example. I quoted the text of the UCMJ detailing how the magistrates at court martial need to be lawyers, and you claim this "conclusively proved" I was wrong that the justice system requires attorneys. This is why I rarely bother to cite things for you. That's only a worthwhile activity if you're willing to read what I cite.Yes, because it conclusively proved that you were in the wrong - I thought it rather interesting at the time that you would claim it as a victory. Your insistence that lawyers are an essential part of the justice system is clearly not the case as your quote proved, though the obvious norm is to tolerate them.