Thanks, SteveH,

But where, exactly, did the 0.3% factor come from? Your snip does not explain that. What I have read in other places, (also not properly justified or supported with data), is statements that the factor is from 2% up to 9%. The first paragraph above says that the CBO "surmises." I am frustrated by the use of such subjective characterizations rather than data. Perhaps the data is in the referenced reports, but if it is, why didn't they just give the numbers? Oh, well.

I agree that tort reform does nothing to improve health care. I never thought it did. It might help to lower the cost, however. When you and I last corresponded on this topic, we were in agreement, I think, that reduction in cost is one of the two basic objectives of health reform, the other being the uninsured and underinsured.

I do not agree that tort reform is just a GOP attack on trial lawyers. The idea of eliminating "outrageous" jury malpractice awards and (more importantly) the high cost of malpractice insurance that goes with it has merit. The total cost of "outrageous" awards is not that large, but it has a multiplier effect when you add in the majority of cases that are settled rather than risk an overly-sympathetic jury. Add to that the higher-than-necessary cost of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine, whatever factor is applied, and I can see where the CBO sees $54 Billion in savings. My opinion (a guess, really, based on nothing more than anecdotes) is that the savings would be greater than that. Even if I'm wrong, $54 Billion ain't hay.

Finally, there's the matter of the corrupting influence. The trial lawyers lobby is the primary impediment to reform, and they do fund a lot of sitting members of Congress of both parties. I would be nice to see this diminish. If there is not all that much money to be saved, why do the trial lawyers, the second biggest lobbying group in Washington, fight so hard to keep things as they are?