Fighting Back Against the Lawyers?

[goldcatt]

Health insurance is not a "right" but legal representation is.

I propose ULC - universal legal care. Its not "fair" that rich people get better representation than the poor ones. All lawyers should be civil servants and get paid a fair salary just like cops and teachers. What say you?

That already exists for those who receive free legal representation as a right in criminal matters. It's called the Public Defender. For those who receive legal representation as a right in certain types of civil cases, it's called Legal Aid (or similar, depending on the State). Both of these are usually staffed by attorneys who are State or local employees drawing a reasonable civil servant salary. Occasionally they are private attorneys drawn from a pool, assigned to handle a specific case and paid a standard fee for their services.

Do you mean to imply teachers are not allowed to choose work in private schools or for private businesses such as tutoring centers, curriculum developers or other related fields if they do not want to be government employees?

I was being facetious goldcatt. But if the prez wants to control executive compensation, perhaps it's time to limit "windfall" compensation from outrageous settlements. The lawyer/politicians have no problem demonizing the "bankers" and limiting Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement to doctors, so why not tort reform? I'm sure they have it in other socialist countries.

Rhetorical question of course.

And you and I both know the only limits that can be placed on compensation hinge on the fact that the private entities paying the salaries are using public funds to do so. Government can place limits on how government money is spent, or nobody has to accept the funds. That's the way it works.

If banks want to take billions in welfare and bailouts, do you honestly believe there should be no limits on the puposes for which it is spent? Why are these entities so different from individuals receiving government handouts?

I've said before I'm not completely against the idea of some tort refrom, depending how it's done. The advertising issue that's been brought up is one way, there are others. Tighten the holes where actual abuse takes place, but the core of the system works.

There are good reasons for the laws we have now, and what you don't seem to understand is with all the demonizing of lawyers that's been done by certain folks in that same government med mal cases are extremely difficult to pursue let alone win. It's already regulated and limited at the start. How far do you want to go, and at what cost to those who are actually harmed by incompetent medical professionals?

And just as important, how much are you as a conservative willing to use the power of goverment to restrict private business, much of it small business, that exists entirely on private capital simply because you can't stand the people who run it?

 

[Vanquish]

Gold, these people obviously have an irrational hatred of lawyers...why even respond? They haven't proven squat...and it's not like anyone's really going to listen to them.

Why even keep this farce of a thread going?

 

[editec]

Have you ever wondered what could be done to stem the litigious insanity that has become the norm in America? Our insurance rates have skyrocketed, and it is becoming almost impossible for small businesses to survive. Well, the American Medical Association may have an answer.

AMA chapters in several states have introduced legislation to allow doctors to refuse non-critical treatment to lawyers and their spouses. This comes as a result of Tort Reform legislation that the AMA has been backing. Six states have already passed a punitive damage cap of $250,000 for medical malpractice suits. This legislation is being strongly pursued by the AMA in many states, because many doctors can no longer afford to practice with current malpractice insurance rates. Today, most doctors pay more than half of their earnings to insurance companies, and the rates are going up every year.

This issue has become a hotbed with the AMA chapters in many states including New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Others are expected to propose similar measures.

All of us suffer from high medical insurance premiums due to the hordes of lawyers who ring hospitals like circling vultures as well as the teams of lawyers who now have to be retained to defend the hospitals. All of this is paid for by... guess who... (got a pocket mirror?). I won't even get into how many billions of our tax dollars pay for the huge court system required to deal with all this bogus legal wrangling.

I would LOVE to see the day that small businessmen everywhere fight back. A day where lawyers cannot get a suit dry-cleaned. Where they are refused service in restaurants and are tossed from taxicabs. A day where lawyers are shunned from polite circles. Alas, this type of blacklisting has already been tried, and it failed. We used to expose and shun the Communists and Socialists in our midst. Today they run the DNC..


-M40-

Ah yes, the MYTH that the cost of HC is rising because of litigation.

FYI the cost of litigation is less than 1% of the overall cost of HC.

Completely eliminate it and you won't even notice a change in your premiums.

 

[goldcatt]

Gold, these people obviously have an irrational hatred of lawyers...why even respond? They haven't proven squat...and it's not like anyone's really going to listen to them.

Why even keep this farce of a thread going?

Honestly? I find them amusing.

 

[editec]

They need to look at the numbers.

Litigation isn't really the problem of rising HC premiums.

But as they hate lawyers, generally, these serve as a convenient scapegoat.

 

[goldcatt]

They need to look at the numbers.

Litigation isn't really the problem of rising HC premiums.

But as they hate lawyers, generally, these serve as a convenient scapegoat.

And that's it, really. And why I find it so amusing.

Trial lawyers (which is a relatively small percentage of the field) do tend to support Democratic candidates and causes.

To get even, many Republican conservatives are willing to abandon their free market principles in order to punish an "enemy" group for partisan benefit. It makes absolutely no sense when you look at it from the point of view of what conservatives claim to stand for, but that's irrelevant.

And to me, interesting to poke a stick at and watch them dance. Same old party first rah rah hack politics as usual....but the lawyers trying to make a living under already tight rules are the bad guys. Go figure.

 

[jillian]

I was being facetious goldcatt. But if the prez wants to control executive compensation, perhaps it's time to limit "windfall" compensation from outrageous settlements. The lawyer/politicians have no problem demonizing the "bankers" and limiting Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement to doctors, so why not tort reform? I'm sure they have it in other socialist countries.

Rhetorical question of course.

I think you should work for free for someone for five years on the priomise that IF they are able to testify appropriately at trial or IF you do a good enough job to get some money that MAYBE you'll get some money.

Then I want to see some braindead idiot who has no clue what you do say that you shouldn't get paid for your work.

 

[Charles Stucker]

They need to look at the numbers.

Litigation isn't really the problem of rising HC premiums.

But as they hate lawyers, generally, these serve as a convenient scapegoat.

No one has shown the product of lawyers which is so essential to our nation.
They have made a lot of claims, but those are just claims.

Show me something a Lawyer does that cannot be done by a well read, well spoken individual who has not passed the Bar. I don't mean one of the things where lawyers have managed to gain a government backed monopoly with the lawyer fans bleating about how it is illegal for someone to do such and such unless they have passed the bar. That's the sort of specious reasoning which led to Divine Right.

 

[jillian]

They need to look at the numbers.

Litigation isn't really the problem of rising HC premiums.

But as they hate lawyers, generally, these serve as a convenient scapegoat.

No one has shown the product of lawyers which is so essential to our nation.
They have made a lot of claims, but those are just claims.

Show me something a Lawyer does that cannot be done by a well read, well spoken individual who has not passed the Bar. I don't mean one of the things where lawyers have managed to gain a government backed monopoly with the lawyer fans bleating about how it is illegal for someone to do such and such unless they have passed the bar. That's the sort of specious reasoning which led to Divine Right.

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

if you were divorcing your spouse and wanted to see your kids, your lawyer is essential.

if you didn't want someone stealing your intellectual property, your lawyer is essential.

but, please, let me know when a baseball player is 'essential'.

in other words, stop whining. it sounds like a huge case of sour grapes.

 

[Charles Stucker]

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

 

[jillian]

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

you know what... i can't be bothered defending a profession to someone who has an obsessive and irrational hatred of that profession. it would be like my wasting my time on the israel issue trying to 'convince' an anti-semite like ... well, i don't have to tell you whom... you know whom...

anyway would be like trying to educate them about israel.

i'll take my usual advice on this issue and not try to teach pigs to talk... it doesn't work and it annoys the pigs.

 

[Vanquish]

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

Actually they DO produce law. Not only are the majority of congresspeople lawyers..who produce law...but they become judges who manage the law...and lobbyists who inform others producing law.

Great job defeating yourself. Now pat yourself on the back.

 

[goldcatt]

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

Actually they DO produce law. Not only are the majority of congresspeople lawyers..who produce law...but they become judges who manage the law...and lobbyists who inform others producing law.

Great job defeating yourself. Now pat yourself on the back.

See? Isn't it sort of fun?

And Chucky, if you hate lawyers so much and can do such a good job on your own there's a simple solution. Don't ever hire one. Problem solved!

 

[Vanquish]

yeah. it's that damn CFPD (compulsive forum posting disease). It stimulates the pleasure centers of my brain

 

[Charles Stucker]

Actually they DO produce law. Not only are the majority of congresspeople lawyers..who produce law...but they become judges who manage the law...and lobbyists who inform others producing law.

Sorry for not being clearer. When I said "law" I meant of course a Law abiding society. Only a lawyer would be unable to understand that.
Lawyers do not produce a law abiding society, rather the reverse.
As has been shown.

Finally, as is obvious to the most causal observer the presence of all the lawyers in making the laws has resulted in the horrid mess which currently exists. That this is the extent of their claim to utility only emphasizes Lawyers irrelevance.

 

[Vanquish]

*bahahahahahahahaha*

Ok. Let's let aircraft maintenance be performed by water-foul trainers. And bridges be built by actors. Hell, why stop there? Circus acts should be performed by meter maids.

I mean if the people who study the law and ponder the law and practice the law are the WORST equipped to deal with the law...

"Lawyers do not produce a law abiding society, rather the reverse." For every criminal defense attorney there's a prosecutor. For every civil defense lawyer there's a plaintiff's attorney. They each keep the other in check towards the creation of justice.

But I think I've finally hit on why you're bat-shit crazy. You don't realize that there are intangible products and services. Justice isn't something you put on a shelf...although you could say putting people in jail for the protection of the citizenry shows a concrete result.

Do you know you're irrational or do you really think you're making headway?

 

[Charles Stucker]

I found a reference to something else lawyers helped make the way it is.
Lawyers will represent parents in a suit against any school system when a child fails his classes to force the school to pass little Johnny. The expense of defending against such lawsuits has prompted a lot of school districts to stop failing students, which has led to a drop in the quality of public education. Big kudos for the lawyers in helping destroy public education.

The problem is the concentration of lawyers; the USA has far too many. Because it has too many and they all want lots of money, they do whatever it takes to earn more. If that means frivolous lawsuits, that's what they do. If it means an outdated Drug enforcement policy, riddled by corruption which continually creates child addicts, then that's what's in store next. If it means class action lawsuits with repeat clientele, then they do that (recently saw an article on science defeating that particular ploy, which was helping destroy yet more industry here in the USA)

Anyone who defends lawyers has to ignore their multitude of excesses and concentrate on some ephemeral list of possible benefits. But hey go ahead convince yourself you are actually useful and not a parasite.

 

[goldcatt]

Don't stop there, Chucky. You're on a roll.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Don't stop there, Chucky. You're on a roll.

Are ALL the other posters on this thread lawyers?

Do you suppose that if I allowed the Drug cartels to write the laws that the laws would favor the drug cartels?
What if I allowed Microsoft to write all the laws, do you think the laws would favor Microsoft?
So why do you not realize that when we let the lawyers write all the laws that the laws will then favor the lawyers?

Imbeciles.

 

[jillian]

And Chucky, if you hate lawyers so much and can do such a good job on your own there's a simple solution. Don't ever hire one. Problem solved!

I always laugh at people who think they can represent themselves. They've watched lawyer shows on TV so they have it down.

I think they should try pulling their own teeth, too..

and next time they go to the market, i think they should ask for the food and offer to pay about five years down the line.. IF they happen to have adequate funds.

yep... that works.

it could happen.