As opposed to the unaccountable board of a non-profit raking in significant income? Where they can pay themselves a nice bonus if they make more money for the non-profit?
Its a completely unproductive answer. Why do you assume a non-profit set up for a cause will predominantly exist to pay it's directors bonuses?
Lets deconstruct the three options on the table:
1) for-profit private -> exists to make money to their shareholders
2) government -> exists to (on paper) provide services to the people, but has a plethora of other reasons of existence (provide jobs for people, provide ego boosts for politicians working in the system)
3) non-profit private -> exists to provide a legal structure around an agreed cause
It is certainly possible someone establishes a non-profit to pocket the money for themselves, but it is a very clear violation of the purpose of the whole structure. In the other two, it is completely acceptable to bounce out of the cause of providing a service to the people, as there are other "goals" for the underlying system.
Whining about directors paying themselves bonuses a low-IQ bait to start flame wars.
