Well, no. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be able to sue, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to collect actual, tangible damages and costs, just that vague, ephemeral "pain and suffering" should be limited to a quarter of a million dollars or so.
As you probably know, malpractice cases are taken on contigency bases, which means that if the plaintiff wins (either by a jury trial or an out-of-court settlement), the lawyer grabs 30-40% -- plus "expenses" -- of the award.
And as you're probably also aware, plaintiffs' lawyers don't take on cases based purely on the merits of the case, but on whether or not they believe they can win -- and win enough to make it worth the gamble of working on a contingency basis.
So, yes, poor, older people with few financial prospects in their futures generally *do* have to suck up their losses, so as not to affect the lawyers' lifestyles!
So your husband or child is paralyzed by gross negligence. How far is that 250,000 pain and suffering going toward your loss? How about if you are left in pain for the rest of your life and you can't do any of the things you used to do, like sex etcetera. 250k cover that pain and suffering? I mean they paid you for the lost wages right? In other countries like Germany people can be jailed for extreme negligence. Not here. They walk away from it. Some doctors need to be sued out of existence.
There is no doubt there are problems and excesses with the legal system but this is not the way to fix it. An educated jury would be a start.
And yes insurance rates escalate during bad periods in the stock market. Even more so this time because a lot of investors didn't know what bonds were. Actuarial tables do not apply to their profits.