What about justice don't you understand? It isn't perfect. The world isn't black and white. There are at least three versions of any event yours, mine and what really happened.

"...if the legal system acted appropriately. The majority of the time, it did. Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment."

While you worry about the 28% of the physicians in the second case, I worry about the 27% of the patients in the first part who were injured and uncompensated. Most physicians are well insured, well connected and well moneyed. I am not as concerned about their financial well being as some joe that had their life ruined due to a error by some MD.

If you had spent some time around a courtroom you would have a better grasp. Your comment "juries, which are comprised of six clueless people off the street, who cannot possibly digest the nuances of a complex medical case" is wrong in so many ways. Most states use 12 jurors in civil cases, not 6. The larger juries tend to be more predictable, self correcting and equitable in awards. Additionally most juries have a good number of fairly smart people on them. I don't understand why you feel compelled to insult your fellow citizens.

is the little conveyor belt to assist in getting the bike back up the stairs. I guess you have to have to work the brake yourself. There is another thing to automate!

What else do you expect from the New York Post?

Whoever wrote this mismash:

"We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again."

Diagram that, sucker!