- Oct 2010
I am aware of that bit, yet I was stating that I do not see something wrong with making profits in principle.Profit and staying in business are two fundamentally different things.
Unless all of us are well off and/or altruists in nature, we work in things we like and/or make a living of, be it a hands on work or be it as direct shareholders (or retirement fund participants) in many people-employing entities.
A situation as I describe does not offend me as much as many other things in my life.
I will gloss over the "brainwashed" bit as irrelevant to what I am about to say, non-profit are usually done for the public good so are charities, they can be both and the same but can be different as well, I used charity since I wanted to emphasize not expecting any financial return from doing something as well as doing something "good" towards people.People have been brainwashed to think non profit means charity and while many charities are non profit, it's just a more efficient model(for everyone involved except shareholders).
I have something in my life that a large segment of people wanted to cause or cheered for not-happening (or happening), I can really use that logic to label almost all of them as murderers (or murder-supporters) and I can make a very self-convincing argument doing it right here right now, it would feel viscerally good but it would be a hyperbole as well as detrimental to any discussion or dialogue.Having enough money to pay your employees and fund the business is not the same as wanting money LEFT OVER. Wanting money left over as a goal means you're going to cut every corner, wage wise, expense wise etc. With health care this inherent need amounts to murder(both hypothetically and in reality).
Does life cycle go by corporate structure ? Does Biology?But don't believe how much more efficent non profits, just look at your typical corporate infrastrcture and compare it to non profit colleges. While corporations are getting every third rate non profit schools are basically rebuilding the Roman Empire, Versailles etc. It gives lens into what we could be if we ditched the corporate model as a society, while the shareholders might not be quite as affluent the rest of society(including much of the infrastructure said wealthy people use)would come out of the dark ages. You call it inefficency, and I guess from a shareholder's perspective that's true but on a business the effect of spending as little as humanely possible is not a good thing. Not good for a business's long term health(shareholders can ditch a company almost any time they like, why should they care about it's long term health once they've milked it?), not good for employees and not good for society as we really are just an aggregate of our services.
At any rate, I also asked about insurance in general, not just health.
I guess you are making the case for no private health insurance, right ?Anyhow health insurance ain't even a real for profit enterprise because they provide no service, they are just providing extortion with the least negotiable thing ever(your life). Insurance is meant to pool risky behavior but health care applies insurance logic to inherent issues(and yeah some people's lifestyle attribute to health problems, the main one's people complain about such as terminal illnesses are more random's)that can't be controlled. So the way companies make profit is to cut every corner that is legally allowed.