4 ms·
Yes, and Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc don't get to decide if their customers get the heart transplant they so desperately need. These companies need to be operati
by rit 17y ago
Yes, and Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc don't get to decide if their customers get the heart transplant they so desperately need.
These companies need to be operating as not-for-profits, or coops. Their motivations between decisions should be driven by what's best for their members, NOT what's best for their pocketbooks. No matter whether it's a profit margin of 1% or 10% or 1000%.
- jdminhbg 17y agoThat's not an argument, it's just an assertion of taste.
- pw0ncakes 17y agoMost importantly, Google and Yahoo, for the most part, don't hurt anyone. They make their money in unambiguously ethical ways. US health insurers, by contrast, contribute to a 9/11 every month in preventable deaths. I don't object if Google makes a lot of money; they provide great services and they should. On the other hand, health insurers are essentially hit men-- they kill* for profit. Their pathetic numbers just indicate that they aren't very good at it. * This may be a bit inflammatory, but it's only a mild exaggeration. In reality, their profit-making model is to externalize costs, and they don't really care whether the patient dies or (more often) the costs are dumped onto the government, or hospitals in the form of unpaid medical bills.