Democrat Talk Radio
HMO's are corporations designed to perform a service to tier members. However, like all corporations, they are not in business to lose money. They have employees to pay, overhead costs, drug and equipment costs, and they have stockholders to keep happy.
They are a business, pure and simple....and the bottom line in all businesses is the bottom line.
As I alluded to in my above post....what this lawsuit cap has done is given the financial decision makers in those organizations a number to go with.....basically a value on human life.
If the costs of care and rehabilitation for a chronic disease would outweigh the costs of any potential lawsuits, there would be no reason that the HMO would go the extra mile to save the patient, and cost the company more money in the long run, is there?
Is it just me who remembers, not too many years ago, that HMOs and Medical Insurance companies would just arbitrarily drop patients whom they considered would be too expensive to maintain? With this track record, how can we, the American people even consider trusting these entities, now that they have a limitation to their liabilities?
Isn't it a constitutional right that any American can sue any one else for redress for a wrong? My liability for a lawsuit is only determined by my assets, and, in some cases, my future earnings potential. Why should these corporations be afforded more protections than I am (or you are, for that matter)?
Lets take for instance Pacific Health Care. I am not saying that this is a bad company....but it was one that I found the information on, readily. PHC has a current market capitalization of $510.9MM, and annual revenues of about $12 billion (expanding on Q1, 2001 revenues). They were able to pay their CEO $728K (no mention of bonuses), and were able to give their stockholders a 55% dividend.
Now, tell me why, if this company were to cause the death of a loved one, through neglect or malpractice, that their liability should be limited to 1/10000 of their company revenues, 3/1000 of their market capital, and only double what they pay their CEO (not counting bonuses)?
I guess we have finally put a value on human life in this country. $1.5M, or 7% of what Halliburton gave Dick Cheney as a severance package.
HMO's are corporations designed to perform a service to tier members. However, like all corporations, they are not in business to lose money. They have employees to pay, overhead costs, drug and equipment costs, and they have stockholders to keep happy.
They are a business, pure and simple....and the bottom line in all businesses is the bottom line.
As I alluded to in my above post....what this lawsuit cap has done is given the financial decision makers in those organizations a number to go with.....basically a value on human life.
If the costs of care and rehabilitation for a chronic disease would outweigh the costs of any potential lawsuits, there would be no reason that the HMO would go the extra mile to save the patient, and cost the company more money in the long run, is there?
Is it just me who remembers, not too many years ago, that HMOs and Medical Insurance companies would just arbitrarily drop patients whom they considered would be too expensive to maintain? With this track record, how can we, the American people even consider trusting these entities, now that they have a limitation to their liabilities?
Isn't it a constitutional right that any American can sue any one else for redress for a wrong? My liability for a lawsuit is only determined by my assets, and, in some cases, my future earnings potential. Why should these corporations be afforded more protections than I am (or you are, for that matter)?
Lets take for instance Pacific Health Care. I am not saying that this is a bad company....but it was one that I found the information on, readily. PHC has a current market capitalization of $510.9MM, and annual revenues of about $12 billion (expanding on Q1, 2001 revenues). They were able to pay their CEO $728K (no mention of bonuses), and were able to give their stockholders a 55% dividend.
Now, tell me why, if this company were to cause the death of a loved one, through neglect or malpractice, that their liability should be limited to 1/10000 of their company revenues, 3/1000 of their market capital, and only double what they pay their CEO (not counting bonuses)?
I guess we have finally put a value on human life in this country. $1.5M, or 7% of what Halliburton gave Dick Cheney as a severance package.
