This guy thinks Tort Reform can be effective by "...just limiting the penalties..." I guess he thinks States will not LIMIT the rights of those injured by the negligence of doctors or hospital personnel. I believe ALL States that have effected Tort Reform have done so by "limiting" the rights of the injured persons.
Maybe you can better explain to Useful Idiots the gap in his "thinking".
Useful Idiot have you checked out R. Berger's "Government by the Judiciary" so you can better understand how the Commerce Clause has been unconstitutionally misapplied by the Courts? You need to work on your knowledge base before you WRITE additional irrational comments!

Your Wrong....most of the so called Tort Reform proposals MANDATE limits on compensatory jury awards. Most limits "non economic" injuries to between $250,000 to $400,000 and no more! FOR YOU TO STATE OTHERWISE IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD OTHERS!
Thus if your 3 month old child develops a infectious disease, due to the negligence of a MD or Hospital, and is permanetly paralyzed in both legs, the jury maybe want to award $1 Million BUT the TORT REFORM proposals will limit their award to the CAPS between $250,000 to $400,000. Is that a fair/reasonable law? Is that fair compensation when the jury determines otherwise? Does that VIOLATE the 7th Amendment? Yes. Of course it is.
Such CAP proposals are being pushed by...

The Constitution does NOT require the Federal Government to step in...you are either truly mistaken OR interested in disinformation! If you would perform a historical review, an objective reader will note how the Commerce Clause has been misapplied in a non Constitutional fashion. Try reading Raoul Berger's "Government by the Judiciary" so as to gain some reasonable perspective!
I would also suggest you review the McCarren-Ferguson Act(1945) which exempts the Insurance Industry from most the the US Anti Trust laws. Why is that law still in effect today? Such law is the real reason there is no REAL competition in the world of insurance. CHECK IT OUT.
Try to get beyond the "talking points" provided by the Insurance lobby and do not...

Mr Hewitt do you KNOW what the 7th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution mean? It appears you do NOT!
You are calling for another FEDERAL law to remove from the States the RIGHT to control their individual judicial systems-including the Right to Trial by Jury in medical negligence lawsuits.
You apparently do not trust the jury system! You want to due away with jury trials since the jurors-common/ordinary people hear and evaluate the facts of a specific case and then follow the judge's instructions as to the law before rendering a verdict. How many jury verdicts favor the injured person? How many favor the MD or hospital? The jury system works in this country and as a consequence SOMETIMES persons injured due to medical...