Tort reform wasn't rejected by the Democrats because it's a bad idea, but because it's add's to much controversy to an all ready controversial reform package. The idea will return when the time is right. The lawyer lobby is strong in the force, it will be a very tough battle to win.
I've looked in to the interstate insurance idea myself, I'm not convinced it will really help that much, if any. I think it would benefit a small select group of healthy people and still leave out those who cannot get insurance at a decent rate. There is simply no motivation, reason or law for the insurance companies to change their actuary tables. They are not going to offer better prices to someone who is high risk regardless of what state he lives in. Some companies may choose to focus on a certain age group, young and healthy and offer a low cost plan Nation wide for that group. Leaving out the same people they leave out today. The end result may well be an increase in rates to those folks who remain in a high risk group.
I would support catastrophic health insurance over no health insurance. The cost has to be based on a sliding scale however if it is going to reach those currently without insurance. Perhaps those with a "Cadillac Plan" would be willing to contribute a little more via a tax of some kind to help out their neighbors?
