I hope everyone's in on the joke that "non-profit" just means that someone other than a class of people called "shareholders" siphons off all the profits. It doesn't mean "low cost".
And I don't imagine humans are that different between healthcare and education industries.
There's a minor distinction because non-profit status is awarded by the state, but income-tax exemptions are administered federally (i.e. 501(c)). But in practice, every non-profit university also fits the definition of a charitable organisation.
"Non-profit" doesn't mean people can't earn good money -- it means the organization exists for a purpose other than profit and, therefore, gets some tax breaks.
Most people I know who work in non-profits are paid below-market for their skills.
This is true, but orthogonal - the complaint is about how much the bosses make, not how much the workers make.
Do the laws we have actually reflect this distinction? Or is it just the "profit" going to executives and asset managers instead of shareholders?
The guy making $4 million/year in salary doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.
I'm not defending high salaries at all non-profits. Yes, some people are overpaid despite being at a non-profit. But don't be confused about what the term "non-profit" means.