<Hopefully this will fix it.>

As some of you may know, the Republicans have offered up their own
version of health care reform. You can read it here:

 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 hellmade 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. 301Reduces (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 negligenceb) 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.