There are more than 200 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who claim attorney as their profession.  Perhaps, like me, you thought there were actually more lawyers in Congress (or at least a higher number who would admit to it) but suffice it to say, attorneys comprise roughly a third of the legislative branch of the federal government.

It is difficult to know how many -- if any -- insurance people have a vote in Congress because, at the present time, there are none who claim insurance as their profession.  Neither faction can be positively identified at a glance for the wearing, or absence, of a barrister's wig.

Nonetheless, behind the scenes there is a much larger cadre of un-elected lawyers and paralegals in Congress who research and write nearly all of the legislation.  Once written, those lawyers attempt to explain their creations to the members of the specific committees that commissioned them. Subsequently, the committee members "suggest" to individual legislators how they should vote on these bills.

No one in Congress (other than the aforementioned unelected lawyers) is forced, therefore, to do a lot of reading. This accepted process enables the passage of appropriations so complex that it may require thousands of pages of legalese to explain them.  Unfortunately, it takes little more than a partisan recommendation to "educate" any given senator or congressman about pending legislation.

Case in point: the so-called health care/health insurance "reform" bill "voted on" in the House of Representatives today contained nearly 3,000 pages by the time amendments and addenda were affixed to it -- after the real politics kicked in and additional back-room deals were cut and additional language was added to the already out-of-control original legalese.

Is it any wonder that the public's distrust of legislators who perpetuate this overly-casual, under-educated, partisan system of conducting business on behalf of the taxpayers is at an all-time high and that the approval ratings of the members of Congress are at an all-time low?

Back to the main topic -- lawyers, particularly those in Congress.

If you are an attorney representing a client in a medical malpractice lawsuit, who would you rather be suing...an individual with limited assets or an insurance company with deep pockets? 

Knowing that insurance companies are in greater jeopardy of insolvency in our present economy than ever before, would you rather be suing an insurance company or the federal government? 

How many times have you heard rhetoric demonizing insurance companies and any number of specific insurance company practices since Barack Obama took office?

How many times have you heard rhetoric from the president and/or any prominent Democrat members of Congress demonizing attorneys for manipulating the current un-reformed health care system to maximize their medical malpractice lawsuit settlements?

How much of the current system's wastefulness being bemoaned by the Democrats is due directly to the cost of litigation in conjunction with malpractice insurance and the out-sized settlements that they have enabled?  On the other hand, how often have the "reformers" even broached the subject of tort reform?

Given the number of insurance industry representatives in Congress versus the number of Democrat attorneys in Congress, is it more likely...

A) That the Republicans in Congress are in bed with the insurance industry as the president and Congressional leaders have alleged or...

B) That the Democrats in Congress are in bed with attorneys who not only work to drain the assets of the system but who write the very legislation that enables them to do so?