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: Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
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: March 2538
Description[?]:
| An act to remove caps on damages for medical malpractice. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tort reform on non-civil lawsuits.
Old value:: There is a cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Current: There is no cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Proposed: There is no cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:12:52, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | The Courts cannot say "sure you've suffered damage, but tough, you're not going to get full compensation". We mustn't turn people away from using the law as their method of compensation. That is what it is for. |
| Date | 03:23:55, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | Support |
| Date | 07:52:05, February 25, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | oppose doctors have to have some protection against greedy lawyers |
| Date | 07:53:43, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | Yes, and that protection is called the Judiciary. |
| Date | 13:17:28, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | JUP. You have been thoroughly bashed over the head on this topic numerous times. TPP? This will leave open multi-million tukar lawsuits and the fact is, the prosecution will win most of those cases. We will not have our medical community runned into the ground. The current law keeps things reasonable. |
| Date | 18:34:17, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Popular Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | We are leaning towards supporting this. |
| Date | 19:18:17, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | Oppooosed |
| Date | 21:53:39, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | No, it doesn't. The current law discriminates against those who have suffered serious injuries. The Judiciary prevents claims from being ridiculous. You don't seem to understand that the prosecution doesn't determine the damages awarded. They suggest an amount to the Court, but the Court has the final say. Nor will they win most cases. They still have to prove all the elements of negligence. That said, you don't really seem to understand a lot about tort law. |
| Date | 23:01:47, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | That was a good line up there @ JUP |
| Date | 23:06:06, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | Jesus fucking Christ! :headbang: Its done by jury you lousy piece of shit. |
| Date | 23:17:34, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | No, it's not. Indeed, a tort case won't have a jury a lot of the time. Juries are mainly for criminal cases. In the tort cases where there are juries and where it is appropriate for the jury to decide the quantum of damages, the judge will give direction as to the extent of damages that may be awarded. When the jury comes back with a figure, the judge has the power to reduce this if it is too outrageous. |
| Date | 03:34:58, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Torts (Medical Malpractice Damages) Amendment Act |
| Message | Oh well. Looks like the main parties here support seeing good doctors being priced out of their practices due to insurance cost. Its nice to see that the ruling parties no longer care for the people who keep them healthy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 287 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 170 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 43 |
| Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
| Random quote: "The only place where democracy comes before work is in the dictionary." - Ralph Nader |