Skip to comments.A Doctor's Plan for Legal Industry Reform [An awesome criticism/parody of Obamacare!]
Posted on 09/03/2009 9:09:37 PM PDT by grundle
Since we are moving toward socialism with ObamaCare, the time has come to do the same with other professionsespecially lawyers. Physician committees can decide whether lawyers are necessary in any given situation.
At a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, our uninformed lawyer in chief suggested that we physicians would rather chop off a foot than manage diabetes since we would make more money doing surgery. Then President Obama compounded his attack by claiming a doctor's reimbursement is between "$30,000" and "$50,000" for such amputations! (Actually, such surgery costs only about $1,500.)
Physicians have never been so insulted. Because of these affronts, I will gladly volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. We physicians know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.
Following are highlights of a proposed bill authorizing the dismantling of the current framework of law practice and instituting socialized legal care:
*Contingency fees will be discouraged, and eventually outlawed, over a five-year period. Slick lawyers taking their "cut" smacks of a bookie operation.
*Government schedules of flat fees for each service, analogous to medicine's Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), will be issued. For example, any divorce will have a set fee of, say, $1,000, regardless of its simplicity or complexity.
*Discourage/eliminate specialization. Legal specialists with extra training and experience charge more money, contributing to increased costs of legal care, making it unaffordable for many.
*Electronic legal records. We should enter the digital age and computerize and centralize legal records nationwide.
*Ban legal advertisements.
*New government oversight. Government overhead to manage the legal system will include a cabinet secretary, commissioners, ombudsmen, auditors, assistants, czars and departments.
*Create a commission to study the diversity and geographic distribution of attorneys, with power to stipulate and enforce corrective actions to right imbalances.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Now, this is change we can believe in.
By Christmas time I believe we will see a protracted General Strike all across America. The country will completely shut down. Everybody has had enough. General Strike until the Kenyan resigns.
Banks nationalized. Car companies nationalized. 2 Trillion stimulus gone. Nationalized health care. Gun ban coming. Illegal aliens amnesty coming. Communist Czars in the Whtie House. This sucker is coming down.
General Strike 2010. Unlikely to end peaceably.
I'll bite this finger.
I hope you repost this in the morninig so more people
will read it. I’ve exhausted my ping list for the week.
SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED LEGAL SERVICES !!!
Does he mention death panels for clients who reach a certain age? “I’d like to help you with your living trust, but you’re too old, here, take this pill.”
Here’s an idea...
There with be something. Don’t worry they are hoping for a swine flu crisis and I figure they plan to manufacture one.
It was just another of Obama’s ‘teachable moments’. Alas, Obama is the apocryphal Harvard man. You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much. Not, I might add, teach him, either.
Do it to the entertainment industry too.
I support the doctors of this country and I condemn Obama’s remarks about them. Get the trial LAWYERS instead, Obie! They’re the money-grubbing leeches.
Best editorial I’ve read in months! Thanks!
Indeed, this was a good read.
This came up last night.
It’s a very smart parody
that hits a homerun on
the travesty of HR2300.
I have proposed single payer public option legal services in the past.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I also like loser pays, with one modification.
Many lawyers handle cases on contingency - if they win at trial, for example, they get 30-40% of the award.
In loser pays, if the plaintiff wins they get money, and if they lose they get stuck with paying both sides legal fees and costs.
That’s unfair - so, to make it fair, the contingency percentage would be in the event of a win or a loss. So if the lawyer gets 30% of an award upon winning, he or she should be stuck with paying 30% of the costs and fees upon losing.
Partnership in good times and bad.
Fair is fair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.