Placing profits over people ?

Okay, you didn't actually ask a question there. But I'll comment on what you brought up.

First, yes a company must make a profit over time in order to stay in business. But the idea that most corporations are running around exploiting people is propoganda by people who dun't understand the notion of freedom. When a person needs a good or service he freely enters into an agreement with a company (or other private actor) to provide that service. The consumer benefits because their needs are met. The provider benefits because they get paid. The employees of the provider benefit because they get paid. Free market transactions benefit ALL parties almost by definition. If any party did NOT benefit, they would walk away from the deal.

Now, there are examples both historical and modern where unethical people did unethical things. Bernie Madoff, Enron are the preeminent modern examples, but read up on how the West Virginia coal situation was handled in the early 20th century. Deplorable abuses. But unethical people will do unethical things in EVERY system. Indeed, I would put the abuses of unethical people in free markets up against the unethical actions of people in larger govt systems like USSR, China, Nazi Germany, etc. any day for a comparison.

The standard for comparison is not perfection. The standard is the other real world results that are out there, and no system has outperformed the free market in fairness or raising the living standards of the poor.

Nothing is wrong with profits. We all know the lights have to stay on and the bills must get paid.

At times though the question becomes how much profit if getting that profit means people die, or children are born with birth defects, or the land becomes unusable for humans for generations.

Then too are the multibillion dollar profits of health insurers needed if its gotten by turning down claims, or denying them? Just so the CEO can have a private plane?

Should people go cold in winter so the potentate can buy his fourth wife diamond encrusted sandals?

That's a long way from making a profit, that's legitimate highway robbery.

By way of comparison, if you look at housing, you'd think, "well, after health care, shelter is a basic human need". So does that mean companies who own housing developments have to put people over profits and give out free or low-cost houses?

You are correct, but that is not what this phrase means. This phrase is probably in reference to the health insurance companies that deliberately make it difficult for people to claim the benefits they paid for through their premiums. Some companies deny legitimate claims because they know that not everyone can afford to take them to court. If they can't afford to get a lawyer and go to court then the health insurance company gets to keep their money and not pay. It is a brilliant idea isn't it?

oh, not only that, but any "non-profit" that proposes to stay in business also has to make a profit somehow. Otherwise, it would disappear in short order and the mission would be unfulfilled.

"non-profit" really means "non-taxed".

It has been through capitalism and those evil profits that has made this the greatest and most generous country in the world.

Well not necessarily, there are things called non-profit organizations.