Let's Socialize Legal Representation

B

Bruxley

New member
Quality legal representation, like quality health care, is beyond the reach of the average American. And like health problems, when a serious legal problem is faced it can devastate someone and render them bankrupt. Their families can face insurmountable debts to defend themselves against unjust lawsuits or face succumbing to those lawsuits.

Insurance is available but not required. And the public defenders are often substandard in the quality of representation delivered.

The only solution would be for all Americans to be covered under a National Legal Representation Plan. One that required all Americans to have insurance and had a single payer system in place to provide not only active legal representation but also preventative legal advice. To standardize the legal positions of each American and allow equity in the legal system that currently is only available to the rich and to those that are insured.

Like the Oil Industry and Health care System, the greed of attorneys HAS to be brought to bear by the Federal Government. Each of has been impacted by such horror stories and each of us is at risk of falling victim to this predatory and under regulated system.

Every American DESERVES quality legal representation and it's about time our government recognize that.
 
I'm just posting this so I can track this thread more easily. This should be entertaining.

Where's my popcorn...
 
Nope. I disagree with your conclusion. My worldviews says that the gov't is responsibly for our safety (both through military security and foreign policies, and from health epidemics through prevention) and since legal issues are, by their very nature, done through the system, any problems can be remedied that way. Tort reform is long overdue.

Your transparent attempt to lay the legal metaphor on the healthcare one is lacking. . .

Would be nice to have a DOJ that wasn't a puppet though.
 
Nice try, I just wish they could get loser pays tort reform passed that would be a good first step in reigning in the lawyers.

"If all the lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mahjongg factory, we'd be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost half." - H.L. Mencken.
 
I challenge your health assertion. Epidemic as defined by a disease effecting a wide area I can agree with as it covers multiple jurisdictions but individual care has direct correlation with legal representation.

Is legal representation NOT as crucial as health care?
since legal issues are, by their very nature, done through the system, any problems can be remedied that way.
Click to expand...

How so? What remedies are in place for defending yourself from lawsuits buy entities with large expert legal teams? Surly in such a lacking analogy (not metaphor) you can present a more intellectual dissemblance then that.

Make an argument that is as cogent as the OP. I understand that it is a challenge but it fletches out the very things about socialism on any level and should provide insight on the problems with the idea to those not engrossed with the partisanship of it. There are genuine reasons that people are for and against issues. This should be a healthy practice in critical thinking vs. emotive reflex as an approach to forming a stance. This is a forum for debate. Let's debate it. Set aside the hostility and debate socializing legal representation. Are you for it?

And what of the greed on the legal system. To charge so much for just words and ink, the profits are obscene.

They are each as preposterous as the other and each as perilous. The difficulty in rejecting one without the other or accepting one and not the other based on the arguments for or against each reveals alot if rhetoric is set aside. What case can be made FOR socialized medice that can't be made FOR socialized legal representation. What case can be made against socialized legal representation that can't be made against socializing medicine. Or socializing industry for that matter.

What of the children of those that lack the resources or aren't responsible enough to buy insurance.
 
Tough one isn't it............
Click to expand...

No, I was at lunch, and had an ice cream for dessert.

Make an argument that is as cogent as the OP. I understand that it is a challenge but it fletches out the very things about socialism on any level and should provide insight on the problems with the idea to those not engrossed with the partisanship of it. There are genuine reasons that people are for and against issues. This should be a healthy practice in critical thinking vs. emotive reflex as an approach to forming a stance. This is a forum for debate. Let's debate it. Set aside the hostility and debate socializing legal representation. Are you for it?
Click to expand...

You think your argument was cogent?
Your entire methodology of trying to set a trap, and providing a flawed analogy (thank you for correcting my mistake on that) doesn't even begin to set a framework for healthy critical thinking. I won't chase red herrings.

Here's my reply in its entirety as to why it is different:
You can't legislate a cure for the flu or cancer.
 
True, the legislature is the wrong place for dealing with a cold or the flu. Socializing Medicine won't either though. But, like legal issues, most are inevitably going to encounter then.

The attack the messenger thing is growing to be a characteristic. Let's try to debate the topic instead OK.

The right to individual heath care is unfounded. It does not exist. The arguments made for socialized medicine are as much a 'red herring' as the ones for socialized legal representation.

In fact...there is MORE explicit language in the constitution for that premise then for socialized medicine. The RIGHT to due process, the RIGHT to have an attorney present during questioning, the RIGHT to representation in court, etc. The Constitution seems to be mandating socialized legal representation.

I have yet to hear any intellectual reason this ought not be done. If the reasons for socialized medicine are valid then those very same arguments are valid for socialized legal representation.

Provide the cogency my OP lacked if you feel it does but let's try to debate the topic rather then simply express your frustration by attacking the messenger.

Socialized Legal Representation is as valid (possibly MORE valid) and urgent as Socialized Medicine. Agree or disagree but make a case for your position.

EDIT TO ADD: Wouldn't there be FAR fewer innocent people in jail/prison/felon status(thus having lost rights) if EVERYONE had access to an OJ Simpson esque defense. After all isn't the premise supposed to be that it is better that 100 guilty men go free then for one innocent man to be imprisoned? The 'innocent until proven guilty' premise is rapidly losing it's resonance. QUALITY LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL !!!!!
 
The attack the messenger thing is growing to be a characteristic. Let's try to debate the topic instead OK.
Click to expand...

Please highlight where this occurred. You are mistaken. If you feel you are not mistaken, please report the post to the administrators as it violates this boards rules.

The right to individual heath care is unfounded. It does not exist.
Click to expand...

Who said it was a right? Where does this argument come from?

I have yet to hear any intellectual reason this ought not be done. If the reasons for socialized medicine are valid then those very same arguments are valid for socialized legal representation.
Click to expand...

You already have my response. Apply Occams Razor to determine a correct solution means you look at tort reform.

You are being very argumentative trying to fit square pegs in round holes and asking me to rationalize why you are trying to do so.
 
Tort reform will provide quality legal representation to the poor? No.
Tort reform will solve the injustices people are subject to from criminal charges on a State or Federal level? Again, no
Tort reform would help a guy raided by ATF because a neighbor exagerated the type or number of firearms he saw.
Tort reform would do WHAT for an individual in need of legal representation? You'll have to answer that one...
When all other means prove untrue then the remaining is the answer doesn't apply anymore. Bye Bye Occy. Seems Tort reform would do little to nothing to address the bulk of legal challenges an individual might face.

I AM glad you see that Health care is not a right like legal representation is. Socialized medicine has no place in America.

Debates are argumentative by nature, if that is uncomfortable a political forum may prove itchy.

As for attacking the messenger maybe snide and dismissive are not attacks.

So do you support Socialized Legal Representation or not? I don't see the average guy facing class action law suits as much as legal charges. But I also don't see people needing transplants as much as antibiotics.

Tort reform and FDA reform are both badly needed but neither really go directly to effecting an individuals specific needs.
 
It will never happen because the majority os lawmakers are also lawyers. They have a vested interest in keeping the legal system a complete mess so that the average person can not make thier way thru what the laws actually are. It is called security for the profession they have choosen.
 
Debates are argumentative by nature, if that is uncomfortable a political forum may prove itchy.
Click to expand...

You don't understand my statements then.

Your square peg is that "public defenders are often substandard in the quality of representation delivered. " and your round hole is "The only solution would be for all Americans to be covered under a National Legal Representation Plan."

I didn't try to wrest you away from your square peg, or your round hole.

I already said I disagree with your premise-conclusion construct and you CONTINUE to be argumentative. Not debating. I'm not either saying that tort reform is the end-all solution to problems you present.

An honest question for you: Should we change the laws requiring emergency rooms to treat all comers, which lets GWB say that essentially all americans have health care? How can you stand your taxes going to help people? Doesn't that irk you? Especially those that can't afford to pay anything at all and waste valuable doctor time with colds and scratches?
 
Bruxley, can you show us a working model? You suggest some rather sweeping changes to American society. Can you name a country that has implemented the nationalized (socialized) ideas you present here? ...and succeeded without the loss of individual freedoms and/or without imposing excessive taxation? Please do tell...
 
Bruxley, can you show us a working model? You suggest some rather sweeping changes to American society. Can you name a country that has implemented the nationalized (socialized) ideas you present here? ...and succeeded without the loss of individual freedoms and/or without imposing excessive taxation? Please do tell...
Click to expand...

The entire point is that the post was tongue in cheek to begin with to attempt to bash proposals in health care. There isn't a workable model he can point to or design.
 
Your square peg is that "public defenders are often substandard in the quality of representation delivered. " and your round hole is "The only solution would be for all Americans to be covered under a National Legal Representation Plan."
Click to expand...
.....and Tort reform is the logical solution by means of Occam's Razor how???

I believe that you are utilizing the spray and pray method of debate.

That you don't agree is fine. That you have nothing to base your disagreement on past 'I don't agree' is becoming obvious and that's OK too. That the analogy is lacking is proving false.

I WAS unaware that GWB considered an ER's obligation to treat all comers as universal health care. I'll bet that another reshape and present intellectual dishonesty. An unarmed debaters favorite friend-sophistry.

Further, if that ER is default care as the Public Defender is default representation then both are adequate. The quality issue goes to you get what you pay for right. An ER doctor will save your life at any length necessary but a public defender will make no such reaches.

As for a prototype just apply the words 'Attorney' and 'Legal' to Barracks health care plan and wizz bang. Quality Legal Representation. You pick the lawyer and the Fed pays the tab. The rest is worked out via the broad sweeping reforms. Obama could do it! And if he doesn't Hillary will in 2012!

The needs are the same right. The quality access for the poor is the same right. There are default minimums in place right.

Can one be justified and not the other?

And the vicious greed and obscene profits Big Law makes has yet to be discussed.
 
Socialize Legal Representation

Sounds like a good way to screw the lawyers, so I'm all for it. The legal representation situation in this country is already so bad for the common man, even a total meltdown of the legal profession wouldn't make things much/any worse for Joe Regular. You know the old saying "how much justice can you afford?" Anyone whose paid a lawyer lately knows the answer to that question is "not a whole lot."
 
The entire point is that the post was tongue in cheek to begin with to attempt to bash proposals in health care. There isn't a workable model he can point to or design.
Click to expand...

Not to bash but to point out the irrationality of it. To use something just as vital to one's life when it is needed to point out the attributes without the long and persistent selling put to it.

"Just the other day a young Lady came up and grabbed my hand and said "My son is in jail because he didn't have a good lawyer and the public defender talked him into a plea even though he was innocent. Now I have to work 2 jobs to feed his kids because he's doing 5 years instead of risking 20. What are you going to do about this?" Quality Legal Representation is a priority of mine. TOO MANY poor and minority people are denied access to vital legal services and are forced into public defenders' offices every day while others enjoy the security of knowing if their freedom becomes in peril they have access to quality legal representation. EVERY American DESERVES to have Quality Legal Representation and when I'M ELECTED.........."
 
That you don't agree is fine. That you have nothing to base your disagreement on past 'I don't agree' is becoming obvious and that's OK too. That the analogy is lacking is proving false.
Click to expand...

My basis was "You can't legislate a cure for the flu or cancer." You CAN legislate limits on legal proceedings. This is where the analogy breaks down. (why I even say this again I don't know, you will not recognize it as such)

I WAS unaware that GWB considered an ER's obligation to treat all comers as universal health care. I'll bet that another reshape and present intellectual dishonesty. An unarmed debaters favorite friend-sophistry.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are unaware of the facts, then ATTACK the messenger? You didn't even take the time to look up the facts! Like I said argumentative, and now hypocritical.

“I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said President Bush a few months ago. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

Further, if that ER is default care as the Public Defender is default representation then both are adequate. The quality issue goes to you get what you pay for right. An ER doctor will save your life at any length necessary but a public defender will make no such reaches.
Click to expand...

Please compare the costs and benefits of preventative health care versus preventative legal care. Obviously you have thought this through and have these numbers.

The needs are the same right. The quality access for the poor is the same right. There are default minimums in place right.
Click to expand...

What percentage of US citizens need health care in their lives, and how much? Same question for legal advise. Again, if you are going to stick with this false analogy, do the math.

And the vicious greed and obscene profits Big Law makes has yet to be discussed.
Click to expand...

Bring in some numbers of people affected by this and we can have a discussion. I am unaware of obscene profits.
Also, please define Big Law.. are you trying to imply that there is a small number of law firms that are colluding on pricing and distribution of legal services or something?
 
My basis was "You can't legislate a cure for the flu or cancer." You CAN legislate limits on legal proceedings. This is where the analogy breaks down. (why I even say this again I don't know, you will not recognize it as such)
Click to expand...
First time you've said that. why you don't recognize that as such I don't know.

And I've asked several times, where does Tort solve the problem? Occam's law is applicable how?

Legal proceedings aren't the issue, LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS. (why I have to say this again I don't know).

If you actually believe GWB is the cause of this your demonstrating some very deluded reasoning. The 'GWB is the cause of all the woes of America' are allotting to his a super human power. You must find him to be quite an impactive and influential President.

The costs in lost freedoms and rights and to children raised without imprisoned parents is incalculable. How many dollars is that worth?
The bulk of people in prisons is poor and/or minority. Is this because they are more criminal or because they lacked access to Quality Legal Representation?

The bulk of people without health care are poor. I don't know if they are also minority, is that due to inherent poor health or due to lack of quality health care.

The parallels abound. One thing is certain. Both are crucial when needed. If one deems socialization due that then they both do.

Please demonstrate how quality legal representation doesn't rise to the level of importance that health care does. And get to that Tort and Occam's Razor explanation too please. I'm quite curious of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top