Something not mentioned about national health care is its limiting medical malpractice suits. What little I know makes this process sound a bit like workmen's compensation - no lawsuits against employers for injuries caused at work. Which then raises a point in my mind about this "socialized medicine business": if the doctors get shielded from their malpractice and from high malpractice premiums, is it the oversight on their business or the limiting of their income that really gets them by the short hairs?

I thought about all this while read Fear of ‘compensation culture’ as Scottish NHS payouts more than double from the Sunday Herald:

But the "exceptional" increase in Scotland is said to be due to a larger number of high-value settlements, and is only a small fraction of the £600m paid out annually by the NHS in England for medical injury cases.

Campaigners say difficulties in accessing specialist solicitors and legal aid in Scotland are preventing many patients from seeking compensation when they have been victims of medical injury.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of charity Action Against Medical Accidents (Avma), claimed the notion of members of the public being highly litigious was a "common myth".

"There is only a tiny fraction of people who could claim for negligence who ever actually make a claim," he said. "In Scotland, even with this big leap in the amount that has been paid out, it only really reflects just a small number of high-value claims.

"It is still just the tip of the iceberg of people who really deserve and need compensation who aren't getting justice."

Leading compensation lawyer Cameron Fyfe also pointed out that the current system of claiming compensation for injury from the NHS was a difficult process.