Tort Reform: Why?

One of the common "reforms" proposed by Republicans is to limit how much money people can sue for if they believe they experienced medical malpractice. Here are two articles that seem to me to SOUNDLY refute the value of tort reform:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/caps-on-medical-malpractice-awards.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

The first article discusses the fact that CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN LIMITING MALPRACTICE AWARDS EVER SINCE 1975. It makes a great subject of study for the benefits, then, of tort reform. The article claims that malpractice insurance there has increased to improve insurance companies' bottom lines, despite the protection of the 1975 law! Another law in California, proposition 103, passed in 1988, regulates insurance rate increases and is posed as being more responsible for low insurance cost increases in that state. Oh, and by the way, lawyers in California are next to unwilling to take a malpractice case because they won't earn enough money to make it worth their while (the cap is $250,000). So medical malpractice insurance went up, uncorrelated to the decrease in malpractice awards, and valid cases against care-givers have been stifled. Great work that tort reform.

The 2nd article shows that there are FAR less suits than are warranted. In fact, people are generally far less likely to sue than our Republican friends would like us to believe. According to the article, "After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." So, Republicans answer to health reform is to reign in that out of control 0.5% of health care cost, medical malpractice suits?!!! Good job Repubs! You're really ferreting out the root cause of the problem. You have earned the low count in the senate you so deserve.

The Slate article also points out the benefits of malpractice suits:

"Anesthesiologists used to get hit with the most malpractice lawsuits and some of the highest insurance premiums. Then in the late 1980s, the American Society of Anesthesiologists launched a project to analyze every claim ever brought against its members and develop new ways to reduce medical error. By 2002, the specialty had one of the highest safety ratings in the profession, and its average insurance premium plummeted to its 1985 level, bucking nationwide trends."

How's that for a reason NOT to enact tort reform. Malpractice suits are a way for THE MARKET, you know, the thing Republicans place on a pedestal, to correct poor behavior in the medical industry.

I honestly do hope Republicans will come up with some viable cost saving measures in the insurance reform debate. But posing tort reform as one of their main cases for doing so shows the total disingenous position they are taking.