Who wants ethic-less, emotion-less, disloyal entities making Health CARE decisions???

[Land Shark]

Three facts below add up to one very pertinent question regarding health CARE and whether for profit insurance companies have any place in it, or not:

1. In a 1970 NYT article Milton Friedman famously stated “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. He has been widely quoted elsewhere saying "The corporation cannot be ethical; its only responsibility is to make a profit." Thus, corporations, as a class -- each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise, are institutionally incapable of ethics.

2. As a matter of black letter law and common sense, corporations have no emotions -- they can not bring claims, for example, for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" because they do not have emotions - they're fictional entities authorized by law that the shareholders and officers literally hide behind ("the corporate veil" of limited liability) so that no human being is to be held responsible or liable for the acts of the corporation, if the corporation has its way. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of emotion.

3. The vast majority of large corporations have actually made threats, or carried them out, to outsource jobs to foreign countries or other states if their demands for tax favors and subsidies are met. The more recent examples of corporate bailouts are among the largest of a long history of such threats and demands. Whenever presented with a possibility of choosing either a loyal action (keeping jobs in the USA or within the current state of employment) or a disloyal action, corporations typically choose, and in fact argue that they MUST choose, the disloyal action of outsourcing jobs, in furtherance of their legally mandated one track minds for profit. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of loyalty or patriotism.

Why would anyone think that disloyal, ethicless, heartless and emotionless FOR PROFIT corporations have any place whatsoever in Health CARE?

[peacebird]

1. not me - that's why I favor single payer. Time to get profit motive out of health care

[Land Shark]

7. Agreed, for all the above reasons (and more, omitted for sake of brevity) nt

[hobbit709]

2. They're loyal all right-to their profits and perks

[Land Shark]

4. That's their 1-track mind or purpose - only "loyalty" allowed. Loyalty to public good forbidden. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

3. These are precisely the reasons

that make me believe that corporations have no place in our society, let alone in our health care. I have always argued that the Friedman prescription is a mandate for psychopathy. We have not only given these artificial "persons" status among us, we have demanded that they behave in ways that we would (or at least should) not tolerate from ordinary humans.

[Land Shark]

5. I asked this question last night at a health care forum: NOBODY wants corps in CARE.

A red-faced panelist, after lots of laughter and applause, then backtracked on his "health insurance marketplace" proposal and said he didn't like corporations in health care, either. The audience sensed the hypocrisy, or backtracking, right away.

[2 Much Tribulation]

6. Core issue = CARE: Who CARES about health/life of people? Why defense$ to defend sick/dying nation?

[Orsino]

8. When it becomes more profitable to provide coverage and care than to deny them...

...then I'll favor corporate involvement.

[Land Shark]

22. Good point! :) nt

[GuvWurld]

9. Good points. Well said. K&R. (EOM)

[Greyhound]

10. "Investors" (the healthy ones, anyway). K&R

[liberalhistorian]

11. Well, hey, as long as it's

a private company and not the eeeevil gubmint that's making my health care decisions for me, I don't care WHAT they decide!

[Individualist]

12. DLC does

[Land Shark]

13. Well then we know with clarity what the DLC intends for health CARE nt

[Jackpine Radical]

14. DLC? Help me out here.

Democrats for Lousy Care?
Defenders of Lying Capitalists?
Democrats of Little Conscience?

[Individualist]

16. All three

are appropriate descriptions of the Democratic Leadership Council.

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. Better than being a "progressive" for no Progress.

Hell I actually like the DLC more because at least they are honest about their motives. Progressives hide behind their Idealism so they can clam their oh so loved oppressed status. Damn I'm glad I'm a Liberal and not a Progressive.

[Individualist]

18. Damn the DLC! They're anything but honest.

The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," - Dennnis Kucinich

[SIMPLYB1980]

19. Yawn.

[H2O Man]

15. Recommended.

Thank you for this.

[Land Shark]

21. You're most welcome, H2O Man! nt

[midnight]

20. Good post Landshark.... Insurance Co. are in the business of

denying medical treatment because they are in the business of making a profit. This very issue is a conflict of interest, and this is why these entities should be removed from this discussion.