Thank you for your comments.

In my view, even if you view tort reform with an optimistic eye that it will work (in the sense that the benefits will outweigh the costs for society as a whole), the type of tort reform we have now is fundamentally flawed because society accepts the benefits while forcing all of the costs to be paid by a few. If society wants the benefits, society should be responsible for paying the costs. But by forcing tort victims, and tort victims alone, to bear all of the costs, tort reform, as currently structured, is incompatible with not only fundamental fairness, but the tenets of Due Process, Equal Protection, and Just Compensation, (not to mention Trial by Jury and Access to the Courts). A few nameless people pay the freight, and everyone else gets a "free ride".

In addition, the reality is that, as an economic matter, tort reform does not "work".

First of all, in a general sense, tort reform, as currently structured, is essentially a form of trickle-down, supply-side, "reverse-Robin Hood", "voodoo" economics. Which doesn't work.

Second, tort reform measures in particular have not actually been shown to reduce premiums or other "costs" of the tort system. You mentioned, for example, the tort reform in Texas. Similar tort reform was enacted in Georgia, where medical malpractice premiums have increased by as much as 57.5%. In response, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association admitted that: “We have not promised price reductions with tort reform.” In Texas itself, where tort reform was promised to improve medical care, recent HealthGrades reports suggest that medical errors are actually on the rise. Moreover, in a study conducted by doctors, recently published by the Harvard School of Public Health, the physicians found that the current tort system does a pretty good job of resolving malpractice claims, and that weeding out non-meritorious (and only non-meritorious) claims would reduce compensation and administrative costs by no more than 13-16%. (There are countless examples in Recent Facts, Statistics, and Opinions [left], the English Rule [left], and elsewhere on this website/blog and in my book, America and the Law: Challenges for the 21st Century.)

The Dick Weekly website you reference is interesting. But it seems to have a lot of unsupported opinion and hyperbole. Sure, tort reform generally advances business interests, (although I could make a pretty solid argument that the repeal of joint and several liability actually hurts local, in-state, small businessmen). Don't get me wrong: I think it's important that businesses and corporations be allowed to thrive, and not be needlessly burdened by a lot of bureaucratic taxes and rules. And I certainly believe that we need to support the medical profession. But the question for the community is not whether legislation will advance a particular business, or industry, or business interests generally. The question is whether it will benefit society as a whole.