[Huck]

Doesn't it seem outrageous for the "conservative" party to be advocating federal takeover of state tort law? And yet, no one blinks. It sounds good. It was only recently I bothered to even think about the issue. It's been a GOP talking point for some time, and I finally asked myself--what is it? When I found out, I realized it was wrong.

I looked up Ron Paul's stance on it for fun, and found that, sure enough, he opposed it.

But you've got all these talkers--Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc---all clamoring for it. I'm sure they'd never take a call questioning the constitutionality of it. That question would never make it past the screener. And so it goes. Sliding along that slippery slope. We're playing around at the margins. All the decisive battles are lost.

[Huck]

wondering what your thoughts on this are.

[Mojave]

Doesn't it seem outrageous for the "conservative" party to be advocating federal takeover of state tort law?

I think so. The defense of that approach, to the extent that one has been offered, seems to be that "abuses" necessitate a federal solution.

In my own experience, I've never know anyone who got an undeserved medical settlement. I have however known several people who have suffered terribly at the hands of incompetent medical personnel.

And why aren't the "conservatives" considering loosening the restrictions on medical competition? More medical schools and less artificial scarcity. A greater emphasis on competency testing than on degrees. An expansion of the ability of pharmacists to become involved in prescribing some medications.

There are alternatives to a federal seizure of state laws.