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: Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: May 2128
Description[?]:
| The plaintiffs in many of these cases suffer far more than the cost of legal fees and medical expenses. Wages lost for time off work and compensation for pain and suffering should be factored into the monetary awards that are paid for damages. Sometimes, no amount of money can be enough to account for the loss of a limb or loved one. Provision: Plaintiffs seeking an unjustified amount of money and can be punished for making trivial and silly lawsuits. Not only will their cases be thrown out, but they will be forced to pay for the legal fees of the defendant and will be charged with filing a frivolous lawsuit. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tort reform on non-civil lawsuits.
Old value:: Lawsuits may only provide money for medical and legal expenses.
Current: There is a 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 | 22:00:51, October 17, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | As the bill currently stands, we feel it will lead to a proliferation of trival and silly lawsuits. If it were coupled with a loser pays provision, where the loser of a suit is responsible for the legal expenses of both sides, we would support. |
| Date | 00:52:06, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | We prefer the current law. When you start mandating that payments be made for "emotional suffering" then you start bankrupting physicians. While physicians should have a motivation to get it right the first time, having to pay for having it fixed does this. When you take the cap away, you just drive up the cost of healthcare and insurance. Meanwhile you drive away doctors, lowering the quality of Likatonia's healthcare. |
| Date | 13:04:49, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | We are in favour of the intermediary option, where some provision is made for wages lost etc, but there is a cap. That stops things getting out of hand and gives us the power to control the system quite carefully, depending on the economic situation. |
| Date | 14:53:49, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | The AAP sees that the PCP instantly throws in a classic cliche... the "emotional suffering" angle. It is far from the first time this issue has been trivialised in this manner... but is that not a logical fallacy? Is the PCP not attempting to appeal to ridicule to 'prove' their point? The AAP can certainly see cases where 'emotional suffering' MIGHT be a valid reason to seek compensation - especially in those cases where no other 'real' compensation can be made? An example MIGHT be negligence during facial plastic surgery, for example... since one can award damages that equate to the reconstructive surgery that might be ASSUMED to be needed... but can they ever repair the damage below the scarring? Can 'medical expenses' help defray the loss of earnings to the person who can never comfortably sit through another job interview? Another case, of course, might be the negligent abortion... in which the surgeon 'accidentally' excises an 'organ' that turns out to be a foetus. What is the 'medical expense'? The cost of some pornography and a bottle of champagne? |
| Date | 06:56:18, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | Eh, say what you like, but we've still got to side with the LPE. Either the current law or a capped law, but we can't support letting it be whatever the jury decides. |
| Date | 19:58:55, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | So - again the PCP sides with profit over human life? Why SHOULDN'T the jury decide how much suffering an individual has been through, and how much that is 'worth'? The other big argument that the AAP has against caps, is that it allows BIG business to ride roughshod over individuals... because a 'capped' damage award means much less to a large company than it does to a small company. |
| Date | 22:52:05, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | They're human. I don't hold it against them and I think that juries are a fine institution in most cases, but juries tend to go for sob stories when it comes to emotional suffering. Meanwhile, a cap ensures that little businesses can SURVIVE lawsuits. A big business would be able to survive an uncapped one, true, but often as not a small business would be demolished and rendered insolvent by that uncapped one. Besides, "human life" is best served by affordable healthcare. When insurance is skyhigh and healthcare costs increase to show that, then health degrades and lives are damaged or lost. If this is us serving profits, then profits should be served more often. |
| Date | 23:15:34, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Tort Reform |
| Message | What the AAP fails to understand is this: We are talking about payouts on malpractice. Simple answer? The doctors/surgeons SHOULD NOT be messing around inside people, if they don't know what they are doing. There are acceptable risks in surgery - and these are covered by the waivers that customers sign. These 'acceptable' risks SHOULD be covered by insurance (or by national insurance). It is the 'unacceptable' risks that should be being avoided... the 'accidental' removals of embryoes, 'accidental' removal of the wrong leg, etc. And, THESE are the cases which insurance should NOT cover, and SHOULD be covered by the negligent parties. The AAP also disagrees over the caps scenario. The jury can ALSO weigh up the ability of the institution to make a payment... and adjudicate accordingly. The small business will thus be 'hurt' much less than the giant corporation in REAL terms - but it will 'feel' the same... scale for scale. Similarly, the Jury SHOULD be able to adjudicate a MUCH greater award against the huge multicorps... if for NO other reason than to encourage them to watch their operators. If the PC wants to see the argument over insurance/medical care crystalised, one should look at the 'real world' examples of the UK and the USA... unimportant care might wait a while on the NHS, but it is usually pretty good once you get it... but what is the big tag line this year for the medical services in the USA??? Something like a quarter of a million 'accidental' deaths on the operating table, in one year? Profits over human value just doesn't add up. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 85 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 327 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 88 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." - Charles R. Magel |