HMOs are financial entities which focus on cutting medical costs and maximizing their profits. Without the right to sue, there is no effective counterweight to this profit motive, nothing to balance concern for the dollar with concern for the patient. Too many decisions about patient care are made based on financial, not medical priorities. We've all heard horror stories of HMOs coming between doctors and their patients. Medical decisions should be made by only two people: you and your doctor.

If we can sue doctors and we can sue hospitals and we can sue nurses, why can't we sue the ones who make the decisions -- HMOs? Why are they exempt from the justice of our courts? Those who would deny this basic right of redress in courts are marching to the beat of the special interest money that comes from HMOs.

Good HMOs need have nothing to fear from litigation. There would be no flood of lawsuits. States which permit suits against HMOs have not experienced an inundation of legal actions. Most lawyers charge contingency fees and only get paid if they win. Why would they endanger their livelihoods with frivolous lawsuits that have no chance of success?

When a doctor makes a ghastly mistake, he has to answer for it in court. But when the doctor wants to do the right thing and the HMO says no wrongly and unfairly, who is to answer for it? Who is to compensate the patient for his extra costs, his loss of health, or even his life itself? Who is to give him funds to ease his life now that faulty medical care has ruined it?