tort reform

Chris is out of town, the babies are in bed, and I am avoiding the dishes for a little while longer, so I decided I would post about my ideas for tort reform.
Everyone hears absurd stories about various lawsuits, and their adverse effects on society in general, and the health care industry in particular but I haven't heard any tort reform measures that I can really get behind. So i thought I would offer my own solutions, uninformed as they may be. I'm interested in what people think of them.

The only type of compensations I usually hear about is reimbursement for medical costs and damaged property, compensation for lost future wages, pain and suffering and punitive damages. Of these, one is easily verifiable and two should be capped at reasonable sums. The last one is the tricky one, and as near as I can see the main problem, since becoming a millionaire through punitive damages has become the new American Dream.
The idea behind the punitive damages should similar to spanking a child. A small swat, sharp and memorable so that hopefully you think twice next time and it doesn't happen again. In practice it seems to be similar to beating the child with a pipe wrench out of a combination of rage and greed. Capping punitive damages doesn't work, because what can kill one company may not even sting another. I think an independent committee of people who understand how businesses are run should assess an appropriate punishment for a company, not 12 jurors who have been emotionally attacked during a trial. The committee should have no knowledge of the particulars of the case, but simply give their opinion of three levels of effective punishment to fit transgressions that are mild, moderate or severe.

The other solution I like best is the idea that punitive damages should punish the company, but NOT to the gain of the plaintiff. The problem with this is where the money goes. Usually, the person suggesting this is a governor trying to secure a new revenue stream for his state, but this is a problem, as it becomes a conflict of interest. The state after all is arbitrating the suit. Other options are for the money to go to charity or other good works, but again this is problematic, since good works are appealing to the jury, it is unfair to the defense. So what we need is a black hole for money. No matter how much is thrown at the black hole, no real good will actually get done. No one benefits, and only the guilty suffer, and the only reason to go through the trouble of making the guilty suffer is for the sake of justice and future safety, not the the McMahon mansion that you think you'll be able to buy once the trial is over. I can't think of a whole lot of good money black holes, but the one that springs to mind is the national debt. I don't think even the tobacco lawsuit settlements would be much more than a drop in that bucket. If it was separated from the government (IE a reasonable balanced budget amendment*) it would be a perfect black hole. Even so, there should be several black holes that the money can go. The jury would not designate which black hole the money would go, it would be assigned randomly. I'll have to think of other options where the money will make no real difference, and no one will benefit. The UN maybe? Meh.

thoughts?

*My idea, by the way, of a reasonable balanced budget amendment involves requirements for all salaries of elected officials to be cut back to the national average household ($40k), and all amenities - top chefs, non-essential travel, etc. to be eliminated for the duration of the crisis that requires adding debt. plus other measures like suspending all spending earmarks until the crisis is over. This idea also needs work.