Since this topic is going to get a lot of airplay, I thought I would go fact-finding with an open mind.

Medical care suits are about 5% of personal-injury filings. Plaintiffs lose 70% of malpractice suits, and even those that win have many cases overturned or damages reduced (or eliminated) on appeal.

Less than 4 percent of tort actions are decided by a jury verdict. I found that interesting.

An insurance industry survey found no difference in malpractice insurance rates in states that had capped damages, versus states without caps. Total cost represents about 0.6% of total health care spending, and almost none of the increases. (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2005/03/10/law/).

According to J. Robert Hunter, federal insurance administrator under Presidents Ford and Carter, caps don't work because liability rates reflect not litigation costs but the insurance industry's own practices. During good times, insurers write policies even for the worst risks to generate cash for investment. When the stock market tanks, rates climb steeply to cover losses. This probably explains the current (sudden) interest in tort reform.

The last big push towards tort reform coincided with the brunt of asbestos lawsuits (if you recall, Cheney's company had significant exposure to asbestos lawsuits, which they shed by splitting up the company).

Although asbestos caused 170,000 deaths from lung cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency was never able to ban it. Lawsuits forced it from the market. (Isn't that the free market at work???)

Summary:
Tort reform is asking you to SIGN AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS in exchange for... really a tiny financial benefit, if any.

I propose a deal that if all conservatives would sign a contract forgoing their rights to sue for the next four years, and we see a 10% drop in health care costs, then we'll vote to enact it into law.