Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Illegal Organ Trafficking Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:36:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
Actually, the doctors and hospitals aren't going to make their money from the people who are dying - that's going to COST them money as they pay for the deceased person's organs. They're going to make their money from the recipients and their insurance companies who are going to foot the bills.


You're really grasping at any way to disagree with me huh? The hospitals will make make money off the deaths of people. The fact that I didn't outline the steps involved in the money making process has no consequence on this discussion. Let's avoid this type of semantic nit-picking shall we? Well, no, because you're wrong. Hospitals do NOT make their money off people dying. Hospitals make their money off treating illnesses and injuries. If the people die, it means the hospital's not doing it's job very well.

Quote:
And the government should set the price and regulate the industry because we know there's no corruption in government, right? Besides which - why should those selfish relatives have any say in what happens to the bodies of their loved ones? No, I believe you're right. Let's just let the government make all of our decisions for us, even beyond death.


I never said that the government should force people to donate. Just provide a set-priced cash incentive. Why? Why should the government be required to regulate what a person charges for his services? (In this case, donating his own organs.) Where's the propriety in that? It's MY damn organ, I should be able to charge whatever the traffic will bear, thank you very much.

Quote:
In a perfect world, there would be no medical bills to pay off, no funeral costs, no credit notes or mortgages to be handled. So in a perfect world, when someone died, it would be the end of it. The people he left behind would have no worries. Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.


Well, I never mentioned anything about mortgages or funeral costs. I mentioned medical bills. And it doesn't take a perfect world to eliminate medical bills for remaining family members. Many other countries in the developed world do it. But..that discussion belongs on the Health Care thread. Are you saying that people who die don't leave behind expenses that their families will have to take care of? Or are you saying that if a way could be found to compensate those people for their loss and help alleviate those expenses simultaneously, it's a bad thing?

I'm just waiting for you to find something in the A-bomb thread to disagree with me about. icon_smile Be wrong and I'll disagree. Be right and I won't. It's that simple.


DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:01:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
Actually, the doctors and hospitals aren't going to make their money from the people who are dying - that's going to COST them money as they pay for the deceased person's organs. They're going to make their money from the recipients and their insurance companies who are going to foot the bills.


You're really grasping at any way to disagree with me huh? The hospitals will make make money off the deaths of people. The fact that I didn't outline the steps involved in the money making process has no consequence on this discussion. Let's avoid this type of semantic nit-picking shall we? Well, no, because you're wrong. Hospitals do NOT make their money off people dying. Hospitals make their money off treating illnesses and injuries. If the people die, it means the hospital's not doing it's job very well.

Quote:
And the government should set the price and regulate the industry because we know there's no corruption in government, right? Besides which - why should those selfish relatives have any say in what happens to the bodies of their loved ones? No, I believe you're right. Let's just let the government make all of our decisions for us, even beyond death.


I never said that the government should force people to donate. Just provide a set-priced cash incentive. Why? Why should the government be required to regulate what a person charges for his services? (In this case, donating his own organs.) Where's the propriety in that? It's MY damn organ, I should be able to charge whatever the traffic will bear, thank you very much.

Quote:
In a perfect world, there would be no medical bills to pay off, no funeral costs, no credit notes or mortgages to be handled. So in a perfect world, when someone died, it would be the end of it. The people he left behind would have no worries. Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.


Well, I never mentioned anything about mortgages or funeral costs. I mentioned medical bills. And it doesn't take a perfect world to eliminate medical bills for remaining family members. Many other countries in the developed world do it. But..that discussion belongs on the Health Care thread. Are you saying that people who die don't leave behind expenses that their families will have to take care of? Or are you saying that if a way could be found to compensate those people for their loss and help alleviate those expenses simultaneously, it's a bad thing?

I'm just waiting for you to find something in the A-bomb thread to disagree with me about. icon_smile Be wrong and I'll disagree. Be right and I won't. It's that simple.


You brought out the red font?? Awww, now I feel like a grade school kid that just got his test back from the absent minded substitute teacher.crybaby

Once again you've managed to slightly miss the point in all three of the above sub-sections in an effort to exacerbate this little feud. The last thing I want is for this section to turn into a "Mr. nudiepants vs DamonX" section," so I'm going to avoid picking away at your consistent mistakes.

But if anyone else wants to step up and point out his obvious flaws...please do. (not the opinions though. His opinions are valid. I'm referring to his persistent comprehension problems). Maybe when someone other than myself enlightens him as to his errors, his stubborness will be somewhat abated.

Quote:
Be wrong and I'll disagree. Be right and I won't. It's that simple.


And I'm the small minded one?
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:14:28 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,237
Location: West Coast
DamonX wrote:


But if anyone else wants to step up and point out his obvious flaws...please do. (not the opinions though. His opinions are valid. I'm referring to his persistent comprehension problems). Maybe when someone other than myself enlightens him as to his errors, his stubborness will be somewhat abated.




I'll step up... coffee

Red Font Point #1. Currently, hospitals do not make their money off people dying. Damon is saying that "if" organ sales post-death were to occur, there would be more money for the hospitals, because more transplants means more cash.

I shall expand on this point...There is less profit in keeping someone on life support, and palliative care versus fulfilling the high demand for transplant surgeries by using their resources to provide for as many transplants as they can. The focus then switches to post-mortem organ sales as the preferred source of easy revenue. Therefore, Damon's original suggestion is that "the hospitals will make money off the deaths of people".... "will" being the operative word here since organ-sales are not currently legal.

Red Font Point #2. Damon is not suggesting that the government should force people to donate (therefore your 'selfish relatives' will still have full autonomy over 'what happens to the bodies of their loved ones after death'). Damon suggests that the government choose a 'set-price cash incentive' which I suspect is to level the playing field for compensation, and also to speed up the process of donation.

I'm interjecting my own opinion on this one... Even though it's your organ, you cannot pre-set the price you wish to sell it for after your death, especially since you don't know what the current value of your organ will be upon the time of your death on a 'free market' if it goes that way (based on your age/health etc). If you die, that means your relatives are in charge of finding a way to get your organ "appraised", determining a price and then... I don't know what your suggestion would be... organ auction? eBay? And from there, negotiations with potential recipients would have to occur. Think of how long it takes to sell a house? How long does the organ last after death? Not that long... unless you are put on ventilators for a few weeks to keep your tissues alive while your family bargains for the best price. The dynamics of selling an organ after death is very different from a living donor selling a spare organ for profit. The latter affords much more time and potential for free-market negotiations, whereas time is of the essence with the former. The government is not the enemy here... a fixed-price incentive would just make the process easier and speedier. It might also convince reluctant donors to step up to the plate and agree to the actual idea of donating after death.

Red Font Point #3. No, Damon is agreeing that people leave behind expenses that families have to take care of (ie. mortgages, credit cards, and funeral costs etc). He's saying that in many countries, medical bills for a deceased person are covered by their healthcare system.

I have nothing to add to this one since the discussion has already taken place in the healthcare thread.


That was fun! Do I get a prize? happy8


LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:52:51 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Let's remember to respect each others' opinions for what they are, if you can't handle that, take the argument offsite and keep it there. The tone's getting a little nasty; nobody's going to want to come in and share if they think they'll get belittled in the process. If they're looking in Think Tank over the last 3 or so days, that's exactly what they'll see.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:46:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Red Font Point #1. Currently, hospitals do not make their money off people dying. Damon is saying that "if" organ sales post-death were to occur, there would be more money for the hospitals, because more transplants means more cash.


Then he should say that. The way he posted it is wrong from every point of view imaginable - economically, fiscally, and ethically. Every organ donor could potentially affect... what? Seven people's lives? Eight? That's seven or eight surgeries that the hospitals and attending staff will earn income from. As things are now, they don't earn any income from the donor's cadaver - nor would they if the donor (or his surviving relatives) were allowed to charge for his organs/corneas. This would COST the hospitals, which cost would have to be recouped form the surgeries themselves.

Dancing_Doll wrote:
Red Font Point #2. Damon is not suggesting that the government should force people to donate (therefore your 'selfish relatives' will still have full autonomy over 'what happens to the bodies of their loved ones after death'). Damon suggests that the government choose a 'set-price cash incentive' which I suspect is to level the playing field for compensation, and also to speed up the process of donation.

I'm interjecting my own opinion on this one... Even though it's your organ, you cannot pre-set the price you wish to sell it for after your death, especially since you don't know what the current value of your organ will be upon the time of your death on a 'free market' if it goes that way (based on your age/health etc). If you die, that means your relatives are in charge of finding a way to get your organ "appraised", determining a price and then... I don't know what your suggestion would be... organ auction? eBay? And from there, negotiations with potential recipients would have to occur. Think of how long it takes to sell a house? How long does the organ last after death? Not that long... unless you are put on ventilators for a few weeks to keep your tissues alive while your family bargains for the best price. The dynamics of selling an organ after death is very different from a living donor selling a spare organ for profit. The latter affords much more time and potential for free-market negotiations, whereas time is of the essence with the former. The government is not the enemy here... a fixed-price incentive would just make the process easier and speedier. It might also convince reluctant donors to step up to the plate and agree to the actual idea of donating after death.


But you've both failed to answer my main question. They're MY organs. They belong to ME, or to my inheritors. What business does any government have setting up a false value for them? Their value should be whatever the market can bear, not what some .gov accountant decides they're worth. However the transaction is handled would have to be a speedy one as (to the best of my understanding) a freshly-available organ has a definite shelf-life. But if you let the free marketplace set the schedule and the price, these detail swill work themselves out. Living wills can be written, attorneys can be consulted ahead of time. If I'm the donor, I can set out ahead of time how I want my body handled when the time comes. And I still insist, since it IS my durn body, I'll want it handled in accordance with MY instructions, not how some government bean counter says it should be done. And if you want to convince "reluctant" donors, then the best way to do that is NOT to set an artificial ceiling on what they're worth.


Dancing_Doll wrote:
b]Red Font Point #3.[/b] No, Damon is agreeing that people leave behind expenses that families have to take care of (ie. mortgages, credit cards, and funeral costs etc). He's saying that in many countries, medical bills for a deceased person are covered by their healthcare system.


Then he should darn well say THAT as well, and not just obfuscate things.

Dancing_Doll wrote:
I have nothing to add to this one since the discussion has already taken place in the healthcare thread.


That was fun! Do I get a prize? happy8



Sure, D. You win ONE internet. Do with it what you will.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:31:12 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,237
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Red Font Point #1. Currently, hospitals do not make their money off people dying. Damon is saying that "if" organ sales post-death were to occur, there would be more money for the hospitals, because more transplants means more cash.


Then he should say that. The way he posted it is wrong from every point of view imaginable - economically, fiscally, and ethically. Every organ donor could potentially affect... what? Seven people's lives? Eight? That's seven or eight surgeries that the hospitals and attending staff will earn income from. As things are now, they don't earn any income from the donor's cadaver - nor would they if the donor (or his surviving relatives) were allowed to charge for his organs/corneas. This would COST the hospitals, which cost would have to be recouped form the surgeries themselves.


Actually he did say it:

DamonX wrote:
The hospitals will make make money off the deaths of people.
You're also going to have doctors and hospitals making a profit from people dying and not living.



MrNudiePants wrote:

Dancing_Doll wrote:
Red Font Point #2. Damon is not suggesting that the government should force people to donate (therefore your 'selfish relatives' will still have full autonomy over 'what happens to the bodies of their loved ones after death'). Damon suggests that the government choose a 'set-price cash incentive' which I suspect is to level the playing field for compensation, and also to speed up the process of donation.

I'm interjecting my own opinion on this one... Even though it's your organ, you cannot pre-set the price you wish to sell it for after your death, especially since you don't know what the current value of your organ will be upon the time of your death on a 'free market' if it goes that way (based on your age/health etc). If you die, that means your relatives are in charge of finding a way to get your organ "appraised", determining a price and then... I don't know what your suggestion would be... organ auction? eBay? And from there, negotiations with potential recipients would have to occur. Think of how long it takes to sell a house? How long does the organ last after death? Not that long... unless you are put on ventilators for a few weeks to keep your tissues alive while your family bargains for the best price. The dynamics of selling an organ after death is very different from a living donor selling a spare organ for profit. The latter affords much more time and potential for free-market negotiations, whereas time is of the essence with the former. The government is not the enemy here... a fixed-price incentive would just make the process easier and speedier. It might also convince reluctant donors to step up to the plate and agree to the actual idea of donating after death.


But you've both failed to answer my main question. They're MY organs. They belong to ME, or to my inheritors. What business does any government have setting up a false value for them? Their value should be whatever the market can bear, not what some .gov accountant decides they're worth. However the transaction is handled would have to be a speedy one as (to the best of my understanding) a freshly-available organ has a definite shelf-life. But if you let the free marketplace set the schedule and the price, these detail swill work themselves out. Living wills can be written, attorneys can be consulted ahead of time. If I'm the donor, I can set out ahead of time how I want my body handled when the time comes. And I still insist, since it IS my durn body, I'll want it handled in accordance with MY instructions, not how some government bean counter says it should be done. And if you want to convince "reluctant" donors, then the best way to do that is NOT to set an artificial ceiling on what they're worth.


I think because the government exists (in an ideal world) with the purpose of creating order in society, and to govern the interests of its people. In this case it would be to speed up the timely delivery of a still-functioning organ and ideally providing a fair market price ahead of time. And yes, I know there is no perfect government, but like I said, the alternatives to this means that valuable time is wasted, and is that really the sort of thing you want family members dealing with? Trying to score top price for your organs during the aftermath of your death? You can set out how you want your body handled, but you can't set out ahead of time what another person is willing to pay for your organs. That's like saying that during any given 48 hours you can find a willing buyer for your house at the exact high end price you specify and get all the paperwork done as well. It's a very loose system... sometimes it might work, other times it won't. It would be unfortunate if enough time lapses that no sale is made, and the organ rots, and the family gets nothing. It's about efficiency. There would be many more legal hoops you'd have to jump through if you were doing it outside the system on a one-of basis. Then again, if the government is so evil, there's always the option to reject everything it does and just go live off the grid completely in a solar powered bunker. I guess it's all individual choice.


MrNudiePants wrote:

Dancing_Doll wrote:
b]Red Font Point #3.[/b] No, Damon is agreeing that people leave behind expenses that families have to take care of (ie. mortgages, credit cards, and funeral costs etc). He's saying that in many countries, medical bills for a deceased person are covered by their healthcare system.


Then he should darn well say THAT as well, and not just obfuscate things.


And again, he did say it:
DamonX wrote:
I think that with a decent health care system though...there should be no medical bills to be paid off after a patient dies.


MrNudiePants wrote:


Dancing_Doll wrote:
I have nothing to add to this one since the discussion has already taken place in the healthcare thread.


That was fun! Do I get a prize? happy8



Sure, D. You win ONE internet. Do with it what you will.


Patiently waiting for the possibility of two more points... Whistle

Joking... it's all good. Some things can get lost in semantics here. What is definitely clear is that there are a lot of opinions on this topic, which is what makes it an interesting discussion overall. Since organ sales (either with living donors or after death) are not yet legal in most parts of the world, it's impossible to determine whose ideas would work best in the real world, so until then it's all speculation and opinion...


MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:18:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Do me a favor - point out to me where he says "hospitals do not make their money off people dying." Because in the very quote you posted, he says:


Quote:
The hospitals will make make money off the deaths of people.
You're also going to have doctors and hospitals making a profit from people dying and not living.


A does NOT equal B.

Quote:
It's a very loose system... sometimes it might work, other times it won't. It would be unfortunate if enough time lapses that no sale is made, and the organ rots, and the family gets nothing.


So? That's their loss then. There's no need for the .gov to regulate a self-regulating system. If the people want to make money, they'll make it work. In my business, I deal with .gov functionaries several times a week. All they do is run up costs, and slow down processes.

On the other item... He was using the supposition that IF we had socialized medicine, then there would be no medical bills to pay, so there would be no need for the donor's inheritors to want payment for the donor's organs. I merely pointed out the fact that medical bills notwithstanding, there would still be plenty of other expenses that would need paid, such as mortgages, funeral costs, etc. No matter what, if the donor's family could earn money from selling off his organs, it would be a good thing for them.

As Damon would say, maybe you should read my post again, and clear up all your misunderstandings before you hit reply... bootyshake laughing6

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:50:23 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,237
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Do me a favor - point out to me where he says "hospitals do not make their money off people dying." Because in the very quote you posted, he says:


Quote:
The hospitals will make make money off the deaths of people.
You're also going to have doctors and hospitals making a profit from people dying and not living.


A does NOT equal B.


Once again, the critical word in this post, which I also explained two posts earlier is the tense of the word "WILL"... as in an occurrence which does not "YET" exist, but "Will" (in the future) if such a system (post-death organ sales using a free-market instead of fixed-price) is put into place. "Will" is a common tense used when expressing an opinion about something that you believe has the high potential to occur in the future, which is different from how things are currently. I'm not sure how to explain this further?? Perhaps a third translator will step up to the plate on this one...

MrNudiePants wrote:

Quote:
It's a very loose system... sometimes it might work, other times it won't. It would be unfortunate if enough time lapses that no sale is made, and the organ rots, and the family gets nothing.


So? That's their loss then. There's no need for the .gov to regulate a self-regulating system. If the people want to make money, they'll make it work. In my business, I deal with .gov functionaries several times a week. All they do is run up costs, and slow down processes.

On the other item... He was using the supposition that IF we had socialized medicine, then there would be no medical bills to pay, so there would be no need for the donor's inheritors to want payment for the donor's organs. I merely pointed out the fact that medical bills notwithstanding, there would still be plenty of other expenses that would need paid, such as mortgages, funeral costs, etc. No matter what, if the donor's family could earn money from selling off his organs, it would be a good thing for them.


First of all, he did not say that he is against a dead-donor receiving monetary compensation for their organ. I will provide a quote for your reference incase you can't find it.

DamonX wrote:

I have no problem with families getting paid for having a relative donating an organ after death...but it should be bought by the government at a set price and given to the most deserving recipient and not the most wealthy.


He is against using a "free market" approach where people are negotiating with the highest bidders. He is suggesting that a "fixed-price" incentive is a more fair and efficient way of going about the entire process of post-mortem organ sales. If that family still gets $25K (standard fixed price) from their relative's kidney, then they can use the money to pay mortgages, funeral costs, or book themselves on a trip to Hawaii and drink it all in Mai Tais for all anyone cares. They are still earning money from the sale, which yes, would be a good thing. Nobody has even disputed this point. What is in dispute is fixed price versus free market price. Either way, the family will have some cash to enjoy.

MrNudiePants wrote:

As Damon would say, maybe you should read my post again, and clear up all your misunderstandings before you hit reply... bootyshake laughing6


Well, at least you got one of his quotes right this time... geek


LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:54:16 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I need to call factcheck.org on you guys, just to help sort through what everyone's actually saying vs. what everyone's misreading in each others' posts.

Sometimes Think Tank gives me tiredhead. d'oh!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:47:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I need to call factcheck.org on you guys, just to help sort through what everyone's actually saying vs. what everyone's misreading in each others' posts.

Sometimes Think Tank gives me tiredhead. d'oh!


I'll stop - last thing I want is Lady X mad at me! And in reality, Damon and Doll are both just trying to convince me that what they posted is not what they posted, and misquoting what I've posted to try and make their point. d'oh!

And I'm not really interested in what Damon thinks is "fair" when "fair" has nothing to do with the real world.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:01:42 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,282
Location: Cakeland, United States
LadyX wrote:
Sometimes Think Tank gives me tiredhead. d'oh!


Tired head is better than no head, baby!

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 06, 2010 11:11:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,053
Just a thought-in nursing school we had to debate this issue and I remember a logical point someone made. In order for anyone to even consider having another person's organ transplanted, there's a lot of criteria that should be met to ensure that the organ will function properly in its new home and even then, some organs, no matter how great a match, fail after transplant. I think that alone should make organ trafficking illegal. It would create the illusion that popping in someone else's kidney is as simple as a routine surgery, and it's not.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.