The government paying for your lawyer? I have fallen out of my chair, I haven’t the words. Did you grow up in an LSD flophouse, Ed–were you raised by huffing, bug-eyed hyenas? Lawyers, paid by the government…to defend people? You’re insane.
A Modest Proposal, 2009 Edition
posted at 10:11 am on July 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Ladies and gentlemen of the Hot Air community, I have discovered an unfair disparity in access to a vital resource based on the economic condition of the consumer. This disparity is not just egregious, but it threatens the very core of our American way of life. People routinely get denied adequate and competent service on the basis of their ability to pay, even though they have a right to it, while the rich eat up all the resources with their ability to access the best and brightest in the field. And in the interest of fairness, the federal government needs to find a solution and impose it on the industry as a whole.
I refer, of course, to legal representation.
WHA…?! Pray, Ed, tell me you’re mistaken, you’ve made some mistake. I swear, you’ve the nerves of a burglar. I was thinking of something utterly different.
Oh, sure, in an emergency, the government will foot the bill for a public defender to represent the poor and indigent, but that’s hardly a comfort to those who needed a lawyer before getting into the emergency condition in the first place.
Er, not exactly following you here. The government already provides defense lawyers to the needy, and they do not do it only ‘in an emergency,’ they do it routinely and pretty much endlessly. And not just when someone is poor, but when (as the predictable Oregon Bar site states) ‘a judge determines that hiring an attorney to represent the person would cause a “substantial financial hardship” for the individual in providing “basic economic necessities” for the person and the person’s dependents.’ Which would include working-class types and folks with families. The Court can provide for service rate reductions as well. And must provide attorneys for children, the mentally ill, the incapacitated, on and on.
Apologies–back to your delicious satire:
Besides, while we have many dedicated public defenders, it’s hardly a news flash that the wealthy can afford much better representation and have a much better chance of prevailing in court in criminal cases. When the poor, working class, and middle class end up in that emergency situation, they can lose their homes and property to pay for decent legal care — and that shouldn’t happen in America, should it?
Hmm, your ‘decent legal care’ point is a good one, I must admit. We should all have access to ‘decent legal care.’ I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but I’m no Ed Morrissey.
After all, unlike health care, Americans actually do have a Constitutional right to legal representation in court. Some will scoff and say the lack of a lawyer, or a bad lawyer, can’t cause your death. Those critics may want to talk with the inmates who got freed from Death Row and lifetime prison sentences after having mediocre attorneys lose cases when the defendant was really innocent. Bad or nonexistent legal representation can take years off of your life, and can definitely get you killed.
This is starting to sound like a position paper. Isn’t satire supposed to be hilarious? This is boring.
I propose that the government impose a single-payer system on the legal profession. Instead of charging private fees, all attorneys would have to send their bills to LegalCare, a new agency in the federal government. Because the government can bargain collectively, they can impose rational fees for legal services instead of the exorbitant billing fees attorneys now charge. Three hundred dollars an hour? Thing of the past. Everyone knows that the government can control costs through price-setting; now we can see this process applied to the legal system, where the government has a large interest in seeing cost savings.
Wait, ’single payer’–this is about healthcare? The government provides virtually no healthcare for people at the bottom of society, but it always provides for their legal defense. I don’t understand–what’s your point? It’d be ridiculous to do the same for healthcare because…why?
“Well, here’s America Lesson 101: The minimally covered get screwed because the system is really tough–you can’t pony up the scratch, you get the asshole coverage. Such is life, not much point.”
I have absolutely no health insurance, none. I beg the system to give me anything. Canadian care, Turkish care, I’d love to have it, drop your asshole coverage on me, I’m good.
“C’mon, you’re an American–you’ve got more pride than that!”
No. No, I don’t. I just want insurance. I’m going to get sick sometime, and I’m scared to think of the consequences, the bills. Didn’t you, yourself, point out our legal system can bankrupt, or even kill, people? Fair enough. But our healthcare quality and affordability should be worse than our legal system’s? I so wish you were satirizing…well, anything.
…How will we pay for LegalCare? I take a page from the House surtax method here, which will disproportionately hit doctors in a wide variety of disciplines. In this case, I propose a 5.4% surtax on lawyers, judges, lobbyists, and political officeholders at the state and federal level. They’re the ones who have enriched themselves through this inequity in the legal system. After all, why should we all have to pay for the single-payer legal system when we can penalize lawyers instead?……
God save our fragile Doctor and Lawyer professionals. And after the pike delivers my hack lawyer, I get full coverage in The Pen, right?
