4 ms·

You're missing GPs point. GP is not arguing to remove the concept of LLCs. GP is arguing that the entity in charge of all your medical information should not b

by hideo 3y ago

You're missing GPs point. GP is not arguing to remove the concept of LLCs. GP is arguing that the entity in charge of all your medical information should not be an LLC. LLCs in general are great. This company probably shouldn't be LLC.

Nifty3929 3y ago
If their lability was not limited, the company would not have been started.
- chopin 3y ago
  If the liability is so great that an LLC is necessary maybe it shouldn't be done in the first place.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    The potential liability for any company is big enough that limited liability is necessary. No one would start company if they could lose all their assets not just ones invested in company. Are people confused that limited liability limits the liability of the company? Because limited liability means that the liability of the owners is limited to their investment. The company can go bankrupt from losing lawsuit.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      For certain things the individual owners shouldn't be shielded from liability. Medical privacy is one of those. Otherwise you end up with people who can create as many harmful businesses as they want and just walk away when it explodes, ignoring everyone caught in the shrapnel. I'm 1000x more concerned about the effects of harmful companies than whatever friction it creates for starting new companies. Everything already moves too fast, it would be far preferable to have fewer corporations if it meant they were of higher ethical behavior.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > The potential liability for any company is big enough that limited liability is necessary. No, that's what insurance is for.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > No one would start company if they could lose all their assets not just ones invested in company. Companies operated before the concept of Limited liability was even invented. We have records of successfull companies from year 578, like Kongō Gumi, in Japan.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Why not? As long as they don't do anything that causes harm then the company isn't in danger. If they think it's likely they would cause harm, well then obviously they shouldn't exist.
ianburrell 3y ago
Most companies are limited liability. All companies that would bid on project would be limited liability. Why do you think this project is special enough that the owners should be liable? Also, LLC in US is kind of company. It is mostly used for small sole proprietorships and partnerships. Technically, public companies are “limited by shares” where shareholders are liable up to value of their shares. But there is no difference in terms of protecting owners from liability so they are called limited liability.

by hideo 3y ago

Nifty3929 3y ago

If their lability was not limited, the company would not have been started.

chopin 3y ago
If the liability is so great that an LLC is necessary maybe it shouldn't be done in the first place.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  The potential liability for any company is big enough that limited liability is necessary. No one would start company if they could lose all their assets not just ones invested in company. Are people confused that limited liability limits the liability of the company? Because limited liability means that the liability of the owners is limited to their investment. The company can go bankrupt from losing lawsuit.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    For certain things the individual owners shouldn't be shielded from liability. Medical privacy is one of those. Otherwise you end up with people who can create as many harmful businesses as they want and just walk away when it explodes, ignoring everyone caught in the shrapnel. I'm 1000x more concerned about the effects of harmful companies than whatever friction it creates for starting new companies. Everything already moves too fast, it would be far preferable to have fewer corporations if it meant they were of higher ethical behavior.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > The potential liability for any company is big enough that limited liability is necessary. No, that's what insurance is for.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > No one would start company if they could lose all their assets not just ones invested in company. Companies operated before the concept of Limited liability was even invented. We have records of successfull companies from year 578, like Kongō Gumi, in Japan.
flangola7 3y ago
Why not? As long as they don't do anything that causes harm then the company isn't in danger. If they think it's likely they would cause harm, well then obviously they shouldn't exist.

ianburrell 3y ago

Most companies are limited liability. All companies that would bid on project would be limited liability. Why do you think this project is special enough that the owners should be liable? Also, LLC in US is kind of company. It is mostly used for small sole proprietorships and partnerships. Technically, public companies are “limited by shares” where shareholders are liable up to value of their shares. But there is no difference in terms of protecting owners from liability so they are called limited liability.