[quote=UCGal]
For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]
Good point UCGal. You and a few other have proven me wrong recently about this. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I thought about tort reform is because I thought it would bring down malpractice insurance. The root of the problem is the malpractice insurance. I figure, the reason why the insurance company charges so much is because of the malpractice law suits. If malpractice law suit are not as prevalent as I thought and the payout is not nearly as much as I thought, then that mean insurer should be making 200-450% more than they did in 1975, right? Does anyone who are in the know have that data?

Maybe, if the government doesn’t require all doctors to have malpractice insurance, it might lower the malpractice insurance. At a certain point, it wouldn’t be worth it anymore. If the malpractice insurers are charging way too much, then they’ll lose customers. But as it stands today, they can charge way too much and their customers don’t have any choice but to pay up and pass on the cost to their customers.