I think limiting the grounds for suit is better than limiting awards though if we're really seeking to deter frivolous law suits rather than simply playing damage control when a legitimate suit enters the penalty phase. Holding the loser liable for the legal fees of all parties makes a lot of sense, too; not only would the "sue first and ask questions later" mindset think twice if they knew they might be stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for a whole firm unless their case were pretty solid, but I recall the mutual shock when snoop and CERTAIN others were discussing the differences between lawsuits here and elsewhere. We may be more "litigious" than them, but it was the Brits asking me "why do you have to PAY for justice?" I still don't really have an answer; it's always seemed to me that the loser ought to be responsible for filing and other court fees on both sides, but that's not how our system works.

It really doesn't matter though, because it seems to me that tort "reform" (and in my experience Republican politicians "reform" flawed programs like vets "treat" broken legged horses) is the only healthcare reform on the table for Republicans. It's a measure of how badly Obama and Co. got outmaneuvered on this one that healthcare reform is becoming more about torts than healthcare (it's a bit like saying we should combat illiteracy by reducing teen pregnancy; it might have some marginal indirect effect, but really doesn't address the core problem. ) One very real reason why Dems might be reluctant to commit to anything here is their experience with supposedly liberal Joe Lieberman: Every time they granted the last concession he wanted, he demanded another last concession until the bill was gutted.

I mean, OK, fine, if they want tort reform included, put it on the table in public bipartisan negotiations. But don't demand Obama and the Dems "stop being secretive" then try to beg off of public meetings on the issue. What if they had a bipartisan discussion and only one side came? I keep hearing Republicans complain that none of their suggestions are being considered, but the only other thing I hear from Republicans is "tort reform, tort reform, tort reform. " I have issues with how the Dems have handled this, but when Republicans want to START with "throw everything out and start over" that's not much of a "bipartisan negotiated compromise. " I happen to think they SHOULD throw everything out and start over, but only in the interest of getting some effective cost controls, preferably in the form of a public option competing alongside private ones and guaranteeing a minimum standard of care. If reasonable tort reform will get that done that's, well, reasonable.

EDIT: The irony, of course, is I'd have responded much sooner if I hadn't been fighting an insurer for my job because of their error, when I wasn't working it or asleep. Guess what's the only remedy if I lose that fight (and my job. )