[ysavir]

It's not. That issue is tangential at best. If it was the crux of the issue here, you'd see many more companies going belly-up rather than pay for health insurance.

For this change, companies like Uber and Lyft will have to completely reorganize their internal systems, ranging from their relationships with drivers to their tooling for organizing their drivers.

They say things like "passengers would experience reduced service, especially in suburban and rural areas" when what they really mean is "lyft would have to pay drivers to be available in that area even when demand is low, and Lyft doesn't want to pay drivers to idle in low demand spaces". There are various solutions to this, but they would all cost Lyft and Uber money, and heaven forbid they not be able to pass those expenses onto others, such as drivers that would hang around those areas _without_ any compensation.

The real heart of the matter here is that 10 years ago Uber disrupted the taxi industry. Now that they're the incumbents, changes like these put Uber and Lyft in a position to be disrupted by newer companies that more easily adapt to regulatory changes, or possibly the taxi companies they disrupted a decade ago. What we're seeing now is Lyft taking drastic measures to try and enrage the public against these policies.

This is a kid throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting cake after refusing to their chores.