this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
217 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
2560 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why I think the single payer model should be expanded to the judiciary, let the govt haggle over lawyer's fees and let the people have access to justice without needing to pay tens of thousands just for their own lawyer.
This is an idea I had never even thought about before. I like it. I'm going to ponder it for a few days in my slow way.
Honest question: Would someone be able to still hire/use their own attorney in such a system?
I'd imagine it'd be like having your own personal doctor under single payer health care, depending on the system the most you'd have to front at point of service is a small "co-pay", ultimately though you would still be able to "hire" whichever lawyer you think will best represent your judiciary interests.
So we'd end up with a pay-to-win system that's little different from the current system.
I don't know what the answer is - it's certainly not a simple problem.
I mean it's only "Pay to win" in the sense that you need to pay anything at all, and there's still the hospital route where your lawyer is provided for you at time of litigation. The difference is immediacy and regular access, not in being able to access it at all.