japhy said:
cjm,
i had to correct several items you mentioned. first off, peter singer is at princeton not harvard. his arguments regarding euthanasia are well developed even if you do not agree with his conclusions.
second, people seem to think that if you want to make money you get a mba or a jd and, boom, your set. if you look at average salaries for physicians, lawyers, mba's you will see that docs come out on top. yeah, there are some lawyers and mba's making obscene amounts of money, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
finally, your analogy regarding lawyers and contngency fees is absurd. i don't see anyopne complaining when lawyers work on contingency and lose a case, thus receiving no payment. this system allows people who would not normally have access to the court to be able to receive representation.
First, thanks for pointing out Singer's pedigree-- for some reason, I had him as a Harvard man; I haven't read any of his essays in ages (for obvious reasons
😛). Also, it was only his arguments regarding euthanizing handicapped children which I was alluding to; his arguments in those analyses clearly contradict his reasoning in several other areas of his philosophy (e.g., that all animals are "equal", humans included). My main point in mentioning him was that the human mind is capable of making even the most self-evidently wrong conduct seem palatable, and that mere sophistry, or even genuine intellectual facility, should not be our criterion for determining right from wrong as a society.
Second, you state that "docs come out on top" as regards salary when compared to MBA's and JD's; my response is: well I should damn well hope so.
😀 Doctors put in 8-10+ years, lawyers only 3 and MBA's mostly 2. If only for this reason (but there are many other reasons why they should be imo), it's only sensible and fair that doctors be better compensated than attorneys or MBA's. Go back to my first or second post in this thread, and see that I feel the problem to be that the market for attorneys is beyond saturation, and since law schools have not restricted the number of seats available (and, in fact, have likely increased the #), the result is an absolute surfeit of attorneys all looking for work. Attorneys are the only profession who can create work for themselves (and they have to in order to stay afloat), and they largely do this by seizing upon the baser inclinations and vulnerabilities of those who are easily suggestible and overly emotional (both the people they recruit as clients and the juries they empanel to hear frivolous cases). And this is simply wrong.
And my point about contingency fees is not "absurd", as you said. If you'll note, I suggested that, in my opinion, the best possible system would be a costs+fee (either per hour or per day/week/month worked) system whereby if an attorney spent 2000 hours working on a case, they would be reimbursed for those hours (at, for example, $150/hour, which is a reasonable rate) as well as being paid an additional fixed fee for their "profit". This could either be a previously agreed upon fee which would not be tied to the amount sought in damages (i.e., not a % of the awards). This would have the effect of lowering the absurd damages sought in many of these frivolous cases (note:
frivolous cases), which are just grossly disproportionate in most instances. Because believe me, these lawyers are not seeking these sums to benefit their clients. If you think they are, well, I have a few choice land-connecting, water-spanning structures to sell you.
😉
If the trend towards higher damages does not abate with the enactment of such measures, then caps on subjective criteria such as "pain and suffering" should be put in place. The system is clearly broken-- I'll leave it to others to quibble over how best to fix it; but it MUST be fixed. Unless, of course, you think that there's nothing wrong with it, which I have a feeling you do. Fortunately for me, that view is only shared by attorneys themselves and
extreme liberals. Even if the trend in damages sought does not change, I'd much rather see the money go into the hands of those who were affected (whether I feel it is commensurate or not) than some greasy medmal lawyer with already-fat pockets, so I would still push to have the aforementioned payment scheme enacted.
And if people who don't have the means to pay brought a justified suit which didn't warrant obscene damages (say, $30-40K), and the attorney spent a large amount of time preparing and pursuing the case, and then the plaintiff couldn't afford to pay the attorney for the hours spent after receiving their damages and paying for their medical expenses etc., well, they could just present the attorney with their "Lawyer Insurance Card ?", and the insurance company would just reimburse the attorney what
they felt his time was worth (which will no doubt be drastically less than what he feels it is worth-- say, $60/hour). And all attorneys would be compelled to accept such insurance, too. After all, attorneys are so concerned that people who "cannot afford it" have access to representation, right?
🙄 They're compassionate souls, those attorneys. And this would be a good way to achieve it while ridding ourselves of the excesses of the current system. Yes, lawyers wouldn't make nearly as much money anymore, but
c'est la vie, right?
😀
They'd also get paid by such companies for their time if they lost the case, thus eliminating any reason whatsoever for contingency fees. Glad we're in agreement.
😉
