We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: End Restrictive Government Interference
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2098
Description[?]:
| As Dr Hook sharpens up his knives to return to his lucrative Surgery-on-the-Cheap business in his kitchen, it is only right that the government levels the playing field in doctor/patient relationships. You can sue a neighbour if his hedge is too high, so you should be able to sue the unregulated doctor who cut off the wrong leg. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Malpractice suits.
Old value:: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors only if death occurs.
Current: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Proposed: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:39:49, August 17, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | Supported |
| Date | 22:43:04, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | Would the Peepul care to explain why they have opposed these very proposals recently? http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=12556 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=13067 |
| Date | 01:00:37, August 18, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | The government provided a quality health service and regulated private clinics. As these safeguards are likely to disappear, mangled patients will at least get some recompense for the torture they are about to suffer. |
| Date | 01:29:18, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | ((lmao)) |
| Date | 04:44:27, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | So a highly qualified doctor, who can be rewarded now for his skill is more likely to make an error than a third rate veterenarian school drop out which was all we could get before when medical practice was financially restricted. We do not think so. We do think though that there are thousands of people who would look to punish doctors for receiving the material rewards of being skilled and dedicated, and seek to take some of this material reward away for no good reason. We still hold that malpractice suits should only be able to be brought either by, or with the support of, the medical regulating body. As this is not an option, we prefer to stick with state of play at the moment. ((The second article is a complete balls up by the moderators)) Tort refers to financial loss. A civil tort case may be about absolutely anything where some loss of something of value has occurred. This should be capped to a reasonable punitive level over and above compoensation for the loss. The existing cap is of six months salary of the claimant on top of loss of earnings and other directly attributable financial burdens. We see no reason to change this. |
| Date | 05:01:18, August 18, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | We do. |
| Date | 17:36:06, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the End Restrictive Government Interference |
| Message | Ah, the old lie about vets. Pathetic. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 267 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 183 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "The superior man is distressed by the limitations of his ability; he is not distressed by the fact that men do not recognize the ability that he has." - Confucius |