Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Let's Socialize Legal Services 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Since the lawyers who contribute millions to the Democratic Party are in favor of Obamacare (including the law school graduate who inflicted it on us), they obviously believe that not only does everybody had a right to healthcare, but that doctors have no right to expect compensation beyond what they, the government, think is fair. However, while the right to health care is debatable, the right to legal counsel is not. Everybody is supposed to have the right to representation in court, but the cost of litigation, especially attorney's fees, imposes an undue hardship on those who cannot afford to pay for this right. In addition, unlike medicine, law is adversarial. The quality of your representation is critical when compared to the quality of your opponent's. Therefore, the playing field is permanently slanted in favor of the rich. Clearly, this cannot continue. Our legal system is in crisis, and I'm going to propose a solution, which is to apply the same structures that we've imposed on health care to legal services.

    How would that work? Simple: All lawyers would be compelled to join Legal Service Cooperative Resource Equivalency Working Group, or L-SCREWinG, which would provide the full gamut of legal services (thus eliminating the expensive overhead of law firms). Every lawyer would have to go through an L-SCREWinG before being assigned to a case, and no independent lawyers would be permitted. Each L-SCREWinG would be staffed with a number of paralegals and research assistants, as determined by the Legal Operations Personnel Procedures Evaluation Division, or LOPPED. Once the expensive support staff of the legal profession has been LOPPED off, costs will drop dramatically. Fees would be flattened out, so that all lawyers were equally accessible to the public, and the rotation of attorneys would be done through a lottery, so that no side in a litigation would be able to manipulate the outcome through the hiring of a better lawyer. You'd get what the system gave you, regardless of quality or specialty. In addition, there would be resource caps on litigation, so that the system couldn't be gamed by using teams of lawyers against individual litigants. Finally, all corporations, institutions or other agencies would be stripped of their legal departments, with everyone going into the L-SCREWinG, with the exception of those redundant staffers who would be LOPPED off.

    The end result is equality of representation for all Americans. Of course, the legal profession would take massive cuts in compensation and would end up being worked much harder without supporting staff, but if they're willing to impose this on the medical profession, then they ought to be willing to accept it being done to them.

    Aside from Wei, who may actually like this idea, I'd be curious how persons on the left react to this. Feel free to disseminate it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,120
    Brilliant absolutely brilliant, that's why we pay you the big bucks, or do we ?
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Um.... we already have socialized legal services.

    Anyone with a criminal charge has the right to legal representation which is provided to them by the state. If they prefer to seek out their own private legal service, and they have the money to do so, they are free to pay a private lawyer or firm to represent them.

    It's no different than a Public Option.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    What's next in this Stalinist march towards insanity? Socialized Retirement funds? Socialized Disability Insurance? Socialized Postal Services?!

    hah! that'll be the day...
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Um.... we already have socialized legal services.

    Anyone with a criminal charge has the right to legal representation which is provided to them by the state. If they prefer to seek out their own private legal service, and they have the money to do so, they are free to pay a private lawyer or firm to represent them.

    It's no different than a Public Option.

    A Swiiiiiiing! and a miss!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,586
    I'm more of the Henry V solution to lawyers:


    "First thing we do is kill the lawyers".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Um.... we already have socialized legal services.

    Anyone with a criminal charge has the right to legal representation which is provided to them by the state. If they prefer to seek out their own private legal service, and they have the money to do so, they are free to pay a private lawyer or firm to represent them.

    It's no different than a Public Option.
    Yes, but the socialists have always said that the public option is simply an incremental step to single payer, and why shouldn't it be? After all, why should OJ Simpson get a dream team while the local crackhead has to make do with an overworked kid from the local community college law program? Doesn't that crackhead have the same right to quality legal care as the millionaire? And that doesn't address the inequality in civil cases, where litigants are responsible for their own legal representation. Legal Aid doesn't apply there. Nope, if we can do it to doctors, we can do it to lawyers. In fact, anything that we do to anybody ought to be tested on lawyers first. There is no lobby of People for the Ethical Treatment of Attorneys, and nobody will care how many lawyers are hurt in the making of a product or service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    What's next in this Stalinist march towards insanity? Socialized Retirement funds? Socialized Disability Insurance? Socialized Postal Services?!

    hah! that'll be the day...
    Oh, come now, Wei, a good Stalinist like you ought to be all over this. It pushes all of your buttons, from income inequality to the unfairness of our legal system. With a little effort, I can probably throw in some Critical Race Theory support for this, too. After all, if the law is a construct to perpetuate privilege, why not undermine that by reducing the privileges of the wealthy in approaching the law by equalizing the levels of representation?

    Seriously, though, the socialized retirement fund is on the verge of insolvency, socialized disability insurance has become a scam for collecting government money for ailments real and imagined and the socialized postal service continues to cut back services and increase costs. If those are your idea of good things, then no wonder you are so confused.

    On another topic, I've just finished a book by Paul Johnson on the link between the personalities and philosophies of secular intellectuals. His chapter on Marx is particularly enlightening. Here's a link, if you care to find out exactly how Marx's ideology evolved from his neuroses and rage, rather than any real scientific investigation.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •