Universal legal care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article reads like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please improve this article by rewriting this article in an encyclopedic style. (documentation, talk) |
Universal legal care is a legal care system in which all residents of a geographic or political entity have their legal care paid for, regardless of their financial status. This type of a socialized judiciary is practiced in a few countries; mostly because lawyers control the legislatures of nations, and they refuse to write a law and implement a policy that would restrict their own incomes for the greater benefit of society. Universal legal care systems involve both schemes to secure funding and the methods of actually providing for legal care.
The majority of universal legal care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue; however, it is possible to employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions.
"Single-payer" describes a type of financing system in which a single entity, typically a government-run organization, acts as the administrator (or "payer") to collect all legal care fees, and pay out all legal care costs. Some advocates of universal legal care assert that single-payer systems save money that could be used directly towards legal care by reducing administrative waste. All lawyers are government employees who are payed a determined wage through union negotiation. Anyone who goes to court no matter how rich or how poor is assigned the next government lawyer on the list. This would allow everyone from the rich to the poor to afford a quality lawyer and have their defense provided for. There will be no more Dream Legal Teams ala OJ Simpson, where one rich man can hire a multitude of lawyers, hogging them from poor people.
There are many common arguments for and against universal legal care. Those in favor of universal legal care often point out that it would provide legal care to the people who currently do not have it. They claim that since today we have a two-tiered system, where only the rich can afford quality legal assistance, wouldn't it be a good idea to socialize the entire legal profession. That way every American will have access to good quality legal assistance. It would also cut down on fees that the lawyer can earn annually and will take out all the incentive for lawyers to file frivilous law suits to make millions and consequently reduce the total number of our nations lawyers trying to get rich. Opponents of universal legal care often point out that socialized judiciary necessitates higher taxes. These opponents also claim that the absence of a market mechanism retards large cash awards, and leads to rationing of care through waiting lists. Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether or not people have a fundamental right to have legal care provided to them by their government
