4 ms·
Thanks for the info. I didn't intend to imply that they (or other nonprofit startups) would face opposition by all established players. It's just that I found m
by jk4930 14y ago
Thanks for the info. I didn't intend to imply that they (or other nonprofit startups) would face opposition by all established players. It's just that I found many "nonprofits" showing questionable behaviours: The people working in the field are often very interested in helping, (some but important) people in the administration became cynics or bigots and working for a nonprofit became less of a mission and more of a job option and power play and protecting their org's income streams and spheres of influence is more important than helping.
This is a POV from Germany where you have a wealthy population willing to donate and many sharks eager to catch the fish. Add to this that some legal circumstances make it possible for the established players to keep fresh competition out of public money streams or eat plenty of the private donor money (e.g., up to 49% for admin costs).
- tptacek 14y agoI'm sure this is true of a lot of charitable endeavors, but the health care charities are generally about getting medical teams on the ground and deploying desperately needed care. It makes sense to route contributions to reputable charities. In the medical space, you have not only PIH but also organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières/DWB-USA. One of the very cool things about what Watsi is doing is that they provide a front end that routes contributions to multiple reputable on-the-ground health care providers, like PIH clinics.
- jk4930 14y agoYes to all of the above. And I think there are other days when I can express my concerns, now it's time that I start celebrating Watsi's success. :)