My personal (unproven) theory is that the non-profit model works well for ventures that require very little entrepreneurial judgment, but poorly otherwise. Vanguard basically follows that: they mainly sell index funds, which a well-trained monkey can run.

Similarly, it makes more sense to have a non-profit coffee-buying employee group to buy coffee (at places that don't provide it for free) rather than pay a vendor to bring it in. But that's not because profit-making is an inherent drain on efficiency, but because the "judgment" that those profits are "buying" ... doesn't add much value.

Vanguard took decades to gain any traction and it was managed well enough to ensure it didn't prematurely burn out, and not only that but Jack Bogle spent his entire life evangelizing low-cost in an environment where "cost is no object" was a common mantra.

Not only that but the healthcare industry has extraordinarily high financial and legal barriers to entry.

>extraordinarily high financial and legal barriers to entry.

If there is a company with enough muscle to force themselves into the business, it's Berkshire.

Considering their already extensive ground in insurance and JP Morgan's financial acuity, Amazon is in good hands. I know I'm hoping they encounter some success.

> Managed well enough

Unlike Amazon and Berkshire, two of the best managed companies humanity has ever created?

> Extraordinarily high financial and legal barriers to entry

Unlike financial companies?

There are extraordinarily high expectations in the finance industry but the only barriers are regulatory compliance (with regards to fiduciary duty) and convincing people to throw money at you.