> http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative396...
> understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo
> almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe
> US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status
> quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance
> companymasters.With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as
> hell made surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about
> reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of
> the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has
> said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures
> by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers
> at the expense oflegitimate victims.As I have said before, even
> though you often (always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort
> reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort
> reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing
> "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the
> legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This
> Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the
> provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort
> reform":s. 301 Reduces (compared to current law in most
> jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year
> after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s. 302a)
> Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases
> ofmedical negligence.b) Eliminates joint and several liability for
> responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract
> to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find
> counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this
> fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of
> contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim
> has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability
> insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of
> punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious,
> or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere
> $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost
> future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time,
> rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance
> company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have
> probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if
> anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed,
> I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as
> you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target
> *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing
> to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a
> right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same
> sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his
> face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media
> commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this
> point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims,
> not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.