Why was Tort Reform not on the table concerning our healthcare?
It was. The language for the ACA's final approach to tort reform--federal money for states that want to test alternatives to their current tort laws--was lifted from a Republican bill from the previous Congress, put forth by their ranking member of the Senate's health committee (language that made an appearance in a modified form in the 2009 Paul Ryan/Tom Coburn health reform bill).
That's a more federalist approach. If you're talking about outright nationalization of tort law, that was on the table, as well. It was one of the many casualties of the GOP decision to make the ACA Obama's Waterloo instead of negotiating to get more things they claim to want in return for offering some votes for the legislation.
When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.
What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?
Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.