In CA there is heavy competition between not-for-profits and for-profit. Kaiser and Blue Shield are both not-for-profits. I'm not sure why you would pick a for-profit here given those options
They lost their ca tax exempt not for profit status but they are still not for profit... which means they pay normal taxes and still operate as a non profit, which is actually pretty amazing in my opinion.
They also limit net income to 2% of revenue and refund anything more.
How is that still a thing? The LA Times article mentioned that they've never had status with the IRS and that they lost status with the California taxmen.
Not for profit doesn't mean that the people doing the work don't get paid. It means that the entity doesn't exist to payback a financial return to its investors.
Think of it this way, a not-for-profit insurance company has to pay its executives, staff, and so forth, while a for-profit insurance company has to do all of that and show a return for its investors.
When an exec makes 22 million at a for-profit company which produces dividends that might make its way into your 401k people have a hissy fit.
When a not-for-profit company pays their execs that much, those same people don't even know, because it's "not-for-profit" they assume it's more charitable somehow.
I don't think it was the reality that the prior comment lamented, but people's perception of it.
There have been moments in my life where I've wanted to smack smug idiots who, when asked what the do, say "I work for a non-profit doing X." As if that makes them better than the rest of us.
