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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, that's what insurance is for.
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.