The more you read about the tort reform debate, the more you realize that it's very much an exercise of "do something, anything. Like this piece, which opens with "Legislation aimed at curbing a crippling rise in medical malpractice insurance premium rates has hit the floor of the state Capitol." Except we've already established in earlier posts that limiting the rights of negligence victims won't curb the crippling rise in premiums. In an interesting waffle, a doctor who helps set rates for an insurance company for doctors in his specialty has testified that it will take at least two years to see whether tort reform legislation will cause rates to drop. Why? He says, "It would take that long to see if the new laws would decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits, and to make sure that the law survives any legal challenges."

Except, that doesn't make sense. First, caps on damages have survived legal challenges for decades. Second, imposition of the proposed limitations ought to result in an immediate drop, unless they have no data linking the proposed legislation to decreases in premiums. As I've said, they don't. Smoke and mirrors.