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: GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Socialist Agenda
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: July 2563
Description[?]:
| "Doctors are not gods. The current law creates state-sanctioned malpractice." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Malpractice suits.
Old value:: Only a medical regulatory body can prosecute a doctor for malpractice.
Current: Only a medical regulatory body can prosecute a doctor for malpractice.
Proposed: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:23:48, April 18, 2008 CET | From | Jewish Mothers' Union | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | Medical professionals should be held to account by other medical professionals who know what they are dealing with. Melanie Koffenbaum (Leader of the JMU) |
| Date | 20:38:31, April 18, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "If you are a doctor, screw up and leave sponges inside one of relatives during surgery, and he or she dies, I'm going to sue your pants off for every last penny you have as well as have your license revoked, and I should have the full right to do that. Having to go through a medical regulatory body only slows down this process, weakens the law suit, and therefore doctors are less accountable for their actions and less careful. HaLeumit Tikvah: Your vote is very socialist for you - law suits are one of the most important means of regulation in the free market. If full law suits cannot be brought against others freely, this makes them no longer accountable for their actions, and degrades service quality universally, as well as allow many corporations to get away with breaking natural law. All in all, restricting law suits of anyone against anyone in any way is the most vile attack on the free market imaginable, and creates a socialist state." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 21:05:38, April 18, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "And, if we are to look to Artania, you will see the danger of allowing free lawsuits. There courts are filled with malpractice suits for trivial matters. The reality is that restricting lawsuits to being decided by the medical regulatory body forces practices to take out ridiculously high malpractice insurance, driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone." |
| Date | 22:52:22, April 18, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "The real problem with the Artania medical care is the idea of malpractice insurance. Doctors should fear making mistakes, not take out "insurance" to protect them from their own problems. Malpractice "insurance" is a criminal idea that seeks to protect doctors from retribution for very big mistakes and from taking responsibility for their own actions. In a free market, this very concept of malpractice "insurance" would be an illegal concept. If you have any care for the Jewish people at all, any belief in the free market system, and any respect for the concept of justice, you will not only vote in favor of this bill, but also in favor of the abolition of malpractice "insurance."" -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 00:51:36, April 19, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "It is very hypocritical of you to lecture us on socialism then propose we ban a large section of the insurance industry, and we resent your cynical and partisan rhetoric aimed at questioning our commitment to justice and the Jewish people. This viewpoint seems highly at odds with the 'natural laws' you advocate. banning insurance can drive an otherwise good doctor into bankruptcy based on a wrong decision or a simple mistake, ruining medical careers and removing cover from a whole area. There is a reason Artanian medical practices are crippled by insurance bills is because they know one decision against them can destroy their entire practice. Banning it would cripple Beiteynuese health care for the sake of some principle about responsibility." -Gilad Lifschitz |
| Date | 01:11:46, April 19, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | ""It is very hypocritical of you to lecture us on socialism then propose we ban a large section of the insurance industry" It would not by hypocritical to say that eliminating organized crime is good for capitalism. Malpractice insurance is crooked. Let's say for instance there were an insurance agency that criminals could hire. It was not quite called "criminal insurance," but basically, they paid a small amount, and whenever a criminal would get caught, this insurance agency would back up the criminals with the money they needed to get the best lawyers that money can buy, and also money to bribe judges, juries, etc. For one thing, there would be a lot more criminals running around. But would it be against capitalism or natural law to advocate the elimination of this "criminal insurance?" No, absolutely not. Because these organizations are basically condoning, encouraging, and funding the existence of criminal acts. As a result, criminals would be less responsible for their actions. Just because they make a profit at the same time does not mean that they are not responsible for their crimes. When someone commits a crime, not only is the acting party guilty, but so are all those that funded, encouraged, and condoned the criminal act. It is the exact same thing with the malpractice insurance industry. If you violate someone else's natural rights by promising someone a service and then screwing them over in the end, you are breaking natural law and should be accountable for your actions. Malpractice insurance funds, condones, and encourages these illegalities and the increase in taking irresponsible actions that lead to malpractice. And if doctors knew they were directly responsible for every mistake, they would be so in fear of making a mistake that they would never let their practice get lax on a "bad day."" -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 01:34:51, April 19, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "We are not interested in your comparisons of our doctors to organised criminals. People make mistakes. That's a reality. We understand the argument that doctors are not 'lax' because they are already dealing with human life will not mean much to you, however Doctors already face consequences for making mistakes- hospitals do not hire those with bad surgery or diagnostic records, and a practice with a high number of lawsuits against it will see their insurance driven up. /you pretend that doctors can simply shrug off an investigation, when that is not the case; it affects them for the rest of their careers. Yet, despite the threat of harming another human being and significantly damaging their careers, mistakes still occur. And your 'solution' to that is to make the consequences so harsh that it willn not only bankrupt private practices, increase health insurance and drive doctors into retirement, but will produce horror stories that will see any of our intelligent youth realise that a profession where one mistake, one that is bound to happen at some point in your career, can see you lose your business and lifes work in one swoop, is not one they wish to pursue. Beiteyneuse healthcare would find itself crippled, all in the name of a set of natural laws which are clearly so unnatural that part of them have to be enforced by the government." -Gilad Lifschitz |
| Date | 15:49:31, April 19, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | ""all in the name of a set of natural laws which are clearly so unnatural that part of them have to be enforced by the government." The single binding principle of natural law is the absolute right to private property. And, the abolition of malpractice insurance does not have to be enforced by government. In the free market, if there were a "criminal insurance" agency, it would be taken down by lawsuits. The same would happen to malpractice insurance. "but will produce horror stories that will see any of our intelligent youth realise that a profession where one mistake, one that is bound to happen at some point in your career, can see you lose your business and lifes work in one swoop, is not one they wish to pursue." If a school bus driver accidentally ran over a child with the bus, that driver would never drive a school bus again, and would have to pursue another career. This is a simple reality. But is there a shortage of school bus drivers? No. And you still don't answer the underlying morality of all of this: how is it moral that the government should keep suffering victims of malpractice from freely pursuing the perpetrators? If such restrictions couldn't happen without the government, then such restrictions are reliant on the government, and therefore such restrictions aren't moral." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 16:13:04, April 19, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | You may be gifted at many things, Mr. Galgenstrick, but analogies is not one of them. 'Criminal Insurance' may be taken down by lawsuits- if it broke the law. Malpractice insurance exists, and is not taken down by lawsuits in the free market. That comparison is flawed. Similarly, you make our own case with your bus driver comparison. The reality is that all doctors will make a mistake at some point ihn their careers. A very large majority will make a mistake that will lead to a patients death or serious complications for the patient in the short or long term.If we were to treat them like this bus driver, Beiteynu would have no doctors. Fortunately bus accident are fairly rare, so people will still choose to become bus drivers because it is very unlikely they will run over a child. In medicine, things are different, and mistakes that risk the patients life happen much more often. Couple that with the years needed to train to be a doctor, and most will decide to go into a profession where it isn't virtually inevitable that they would be sued for their Worldly possessions and forced out of their job. Victims of malpractice were still free to sue- if a medical regulatory body said it was malpractive. Freeing things up drives up malpractice insurance, which drives up medical bills, which drives up health insurance, and thus forces much of Beiteynu poor to live without health insurance. To pass an act that will do this is the truly immoral act." -Gilad Lifschitz |
| Date | 16:30:22, April 19, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | ""Victims of malpractice were still free to sue- if a medical regulatory body said it was malpractive." If it wasn't truly malpractice, the prosecutor would inevitably lose the case. A medical regulatory body is not needed to say what is and isn't malpractice. In fact, the purpose of the malpractice case is the deciding of whether or not it was malpractice. Having an additional body only complicates things, expands the bureaucracy, reduces societal efficiency, and increases chances for corruption. "Freeing things up drives up malpractice insurance, which drives up medical bills, which drives up health insurance, and thus forces much of Beiteynu poor to live without health insurance." And again, if a malpractice case based on claims of malpractice that were not genuine were brought to court, it would lose, and the doctor would owe nothing. If the case loses, who pays for the case? The doctor? Certainly not - that's not how the legal system works. The prosecutor pays for the case. So in other words, if I file a lawsuit claiming malpractice, and it turns out that it really was malpractice, then the doctor is sued, and could possibly go out of business, especially if courts previously found that malpractice insurance is indeed criminal (that's actually just my personal opinion - it does not necessarily mean that an anarcho-capitalist society would find malpractice insurance criminal as well - it would be up to the courts to decide whether or not it was). However, if I file a malpractice suit against a doctor, and it really isn't malpractice, is this going to raise the cost of healthcare? Nope, not one bit. What it's going to do instead, is put me, who accused malpractice on false claims, into a lot of debt. The doctor does not suffer from mountains of false malpractice suits, the prosecutors do." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 17:05:31, April 19, 2008 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | If you are saying that the accusers will have to pay the doctors lawyers bill as well, then that removes one of our objections, but the medical regulatory body is not expanding bureacracy, since it removes a lot of strain on the courts to allow them to deal with proper criminals. |
| Date | 17:12:00, April 19, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the GJA Doctors - 11.29.2562.AD |
| Message | "1) "If you are saying that the accusers will have to pay the doctors lawyers bill as well, then that removes one of our objections" That's EXACTLY what I'm saying - and that's exactly how it is and should be. 2) "but the medical regulatory body is not expanding bureacracy, since it removes a lot of strain on the courts to allow them to deal with proper criminals." There are different courts for different types of crimes. If I am not mistaken, malpractice has its own set of courts in our justice system." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 154 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 118 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 128 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." - Martin Luther King Jr. |