I believe I have commented in response to your comments before. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment here. The current system needs changing that's why we are pushing for health care reform. People are dieing in record numbers and have increased instances of infection, that needs to change. As to the tort system, I have written about Minnesota's system a number of times: low rates, low number of cases and great care. Much better than caps.
I did visit your site and found the piece about right to health care interesting. I see it more as a test of the way we treat our members of the society. Interesting, that so many on the other side will readily give away or steal the constitutional right of civil redress. Federal tort reform not only harms that right, but also harms the protections of individual state rights.
As to your piece about defensive medicine being a part of every doctors care, I so hope you are wrong about that. I believe I asked you before, but just in case: 1) who got the money for the unneeded care? 2) Can you list all the unneeded care you have done? 3) Did you ever find anything with the unneeded care? and 4) If we accept as true your statement that all doctors do this, why should we trust that you would do the right thing under any system? Would a cap system lead to actual cost benefit analysis in the care? "shoot all I can do is $250,000 worth of liability" damage?

As you have written Joint and several might have been better. I don't know enough about Ohio , but isn't that area the most conservative in the state? If those juries thought there was a big problem, seems to me there was some issue there. I'll go and read the post when I get a chance today.
How did the cap become the best solution?:
For who? Isn't Ohio the state where the chief lobbyist later had his own horrible accident and is now against caps? If you have caps , why are you still practicing defensive medicine?
Seems to me there are still many questions and at best maybe a few bad doctors, who should have been out of the system and are now protected. Consumers aren't safer.

I finally found it, the lobbyist was actually from Indiana More ...
I do find it a little interesting that you won't answer questions, because they don't matter as being personal, but you write and keep using personal examples. I can understand as a defendant why you wouldn't want to answer, but go ahead and say that.
I went through your Time to Served piece and am puzzled, you do slant it in your favor, by not going into the merits and taking every pop shot you can at the case. Seems odd that you have been sued and dropped out that many times, I don't see that kind of thing happening here.
I did find it a interesting that you complained about the number of lawyers the person had been dealing with and at the same time there were many more doctors. All of which were paid for what they did. None of the lawyers will be paid unless successful

I see those tests as making sure you don't miss something like cancer and preventing the person from dieing. That's like saying the football team has to go on defense half the time and not accepting that's part of winning the game. It isn't because I'm waiting for you not to do the test and will sue you if you don't do it.
I assume you don't do a colonoscopies on everyone that walks in or everyone you see. They have to have some sign or symptom or be part of some risk group. If not, that sounds like fraud to me.
As to the case you were dropped from were all close to the statute of limitation, the extra protection that defendants have that allows them to walk away. No affidavit, which aren't easy to get, despite your claim they are (which actually may have been the straw man for you to question the vitality of the case) made the system work.
How many times do we look at cases where the doctor admits they did something wrong, may even tell the person that they will take care of them, and later denies everything?
How many times does the Insurance companies arrogance and knowledge that juries do like doctors and really do give them a higher protection beyond the court rules, lead to cases lasting longer?
I still go back to, we don't take cases without understanding the amount of money that goes into them. We turn down 100's of cases that are real but because of damages or cost we can't pursue.