(V): "who's interests are affected if tort reform is made?"

Politicians interested in seeing healthcare nationalized would have been negatively affected by tort reform. Their argument was based on some made up ethereal morality that says everyone has a right to healthcare. The way it will work now is if you don't get health care a fine can be levied against you. So apparently this "right" to healthcare will be mandatory. But if the problems with healthcare were actually fixed, they would have had no reason to say it needed fixing... this is why some politicians have always opposed tort reform. Their eyes were on the prize of gaining control of that industry.

The average citizen on the other hand would have been positively affected, because competition would cause prices to fall after the need to insure against exorbitant claims is no longer a concern. Availability has never been an issue, but it probably soon will be.

I say "would have been" because now that government controled healthcare has been made law, the point is moot. We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage. And on top of that, health insurance probably won't cost any less than it did before. So what exactly have we gained? We've taken a relatively small problem and made it much worse.