Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.

What kind of idiot would say such a thing? It must be some evil conservative, probably a doctor. Well, the man is a physician and many Alaskans would say he is an idiot. A conservative? No, that quote is from Howard Dean.

It is a striking admission given how kind lawyers are to Democrat campaigns. He fails to leave out that by taking on the powerful legal lobby his party would have to bite the hand that feeds it. Dr. Dean will likely get some angry feedback from the puppet masters over at the American Association for Justice.

Dr. Dean has the benefit of both the big picture and anecdotal experience. He knows the harm tort has on the medical system. It is likely he ordered a test or two in his time to cover his proverbial posterior from a frivolous suit. He may even take an occasional glance at his wife’s malpractice insurance bills. There is little doubt he hears, reads, and sees things about the 4 out of 5 filed medical malpractice suits that are completely meritless.

During the 2008 Democratic primaries I remember watching an exchange between John Edwards and the rest of the candidates. Edwards was taking shots at everybody else for taking money from lobbyists. He was also joining Barack Obama in attacking two other Democrat targets, big oil and pharmaceutical companies. Chris Dodd committed a sin in Democrat circles and then asked Edwards about the money he got from the trial lawyers. Edwards turned silent.

The arguments against tort reform are that it will not allow patients to recover when they are wronged. That is false. Nobody is advocating any system that would take the right to file a suit away.

There are arguments that it would not save money. Nobody really knows how much it would save. As I pointed out before the Pacific Research Institute has estimated it could save $124B.

Texas had serious problems with medical malpractice in the early part of the decade. Gov. Rick Perry asked for a solution in 2003 the legislature delivered.

Texas passed tort reform in 2003. It capped non-economic damages at $250K per patient and $750K per incident. People can still be appropriately compensated for their losses. It just keeps lawsuits from becoming lottery tickets.

Texas also required lawyers to provide expert witness support for their case within 4 months of filing the suit. This is not a high hurdle if there is true malpractice.

Best of all, Texas let the voters decide on the plan. The good people of Texas passed it.

The Lone Star State saw a 27% decrease in malpractice premiums. Applications to practice medicine in the state are up 57%.

The biggest gain has been an increase in primary care especially obstetric care to underserved rural areas. That even includes the class action suit haven of the Rio Grande Valley.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi has a similar story:

The number of medical liability lawsuits against Mississippi doctors fell almost ninety percent one year after tort reform went into effect. Doctors have quit leaving the state and limiting their practices to avoid lawsuit abuse.

California waded into the waters of tort reform back in 1975. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) faced court challenges but has done great things. Even the CEO of Planned Parenthood in California believes the law is essential in maintaining access to care.

One argument made up here by Democrats when the Alaska cap was being debated was that it treated doctors as a favored class. That is an easy one to counter, apply the tort reform to everything.

The US spends twice as much on tort as most other developed countries. That does not even include the money we waste on defensive practices and insurance. Lawyers know they can get money out of just being a nuisance even if they do not hit a jackpot.

There is more to the argument than cost when it comes to meritless medical malpractice suits. States losing doctors have used it to stop the bleeding. States once in crisis have used it to attract doctors. Some states behind the power curve are on the losing end of the equation. The winners are patients who get better access to primary care as shown in Texas and California.

Tort reform can take various paths and not every attempt has been successful.

The goal should be to reduce meritless suits and keep the system from being a de facto lottery. Caps on non-economic damages still allow appropriate recovery by the plaintiff. Expert panels also help to keep meritless cases out of the system. Other effective measures can include limiting how much money can be made on contingency.

The money trial lawyers spent buying Democrats has been reaping rewards for years. Liberals have been having seizures about how much money is being spent to oppose the current health care bill but are completely silent on the money that was spent to keep things out of the plan.

America cannot afford to have tort reform on the sideline during this debate.

It is time to go to New Hampshire and South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico and California and Texas and New York and South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. Then we’ll go to Washington DC and take back the country from the lawyers.

Come all ye Deaniacs and join the fight.