Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

[eflatminor]

Even with the legal sale of booze or firearms, there is still a substantial black market - particularly firearms. So why do you think it would be any different with organs?

Oh good God, you couldn't be that thick. There IS a black market for organs now, which would be less so with a legitimate market. Think of it this way: Do you think the black market for firearms would increase or decrease if we outlawed the sale of firearms?

Duh.

Thanks for proving my point.

No one is denying there is a black market for organs now, but it's very small because the process getting, preserving and matching organs is complicated and, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, most deaths result in organs that aren't useful for transplants.

I don't care about the black market because as we all know, whatever it's size now, it would be smaller with a legitimate, free market. It was true with alcohol, it's true with any product/service for which there is a demand

Where a black market is most likely to happen is with something like kidneys where a living donar can donate. For other organs - death is required, and not just any death - healthy death. This is where organs really differ from any other product - someone has to die.

So what? What you keep overlooking is the fact that with a legitimate market, the supply would increase dramatically and the black market would be suppressed.

Legalizing it could increase demand and increase the potential for abuse.

You have zero evidence that demand would all of sudden increase. Why? A free market would mean more people in need of transplants? That makes no damn sense. Further, the potential for abuse would not increase. After we ended prohibition, illegal alcohol became LESS of a problem, not more. The same would be true for body parts or any product/service that is prevented from meeting demand

Making it legal to sell won't prevent the abuses

So we should just let people die? That's ridiculous.

nor will it ensure that those most in need get it.

But it will ensure MORE people get the transplants they need

There will still be a black market for those who can't afford it

A smaller one

and it will thrive.

Bullshit. If that were true, illegal alcohol would be a bigger problem today than during prohibition

The bottom line is that we know a free market for body parts would mean a greater supply and a more efficient delivery system for transplants. Your fears that the black market would increase are not base in reality. Answer the question: If we were to outlaw the sale of firearms, would the black market increase or decrease?

The answer is obvious. When we outlaw the legitimate sale of that for which demand exists, black markets thrive. When we allow businesses to compete, with regulation of course, supply increases to meet demand, while prices faces downward pressure and service standards increase in the face of competing operations.

In the mean time, people are needlessly dying. To support that ACTUAL RESULT is shameful.

 

[Oddball]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

Really? Then leftwing boycotts of companies are rather pointless.

In reality, private companies do pay attention to their shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, partners, and community. If they don't, they are far less successful than then would otherwise be.

I am taking about health companies. It is almost impossible to change them. Shareholders and dividends are far more important than patients.

Just when I thought I had heard you say the stupidest thing you have ever said, it takes less that 24 hours to surpass the previous stupidity.

With no patients, there is no business to create shares to sell to shareholders and dividends to pay out.

You really need to lay off the Robitussin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says Oddgoofus. You need to start thinking, midget mind.

The consumer has very little control over the products he must have.

If the voters will act in concert, they can make the government respond much more easily than Enormous Corporation.

You really have drank the kool aid.

 

[dblack]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

Really? Then leftwing boycotts of companies are rather pointless.

In reality, private companies do pay attention to their shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, partners, and community. If they don't, they are far less successful than then would otherwise be.

I am taking about health companies. It is almost impossible to change them. Shareholders and dividends are far more important than patients.

The answer to dblack's very reasoned essay above is: get involved in government, in which we are the shareholders.

Which is, of course, no answer at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is the correct answer, dblack, and that you don't like matters not at all.

 

[dblack]

It is the correct answer, dblack, and that you don't like matters not at all.

How so? The question of how to protect the values of minorities isn't addressed at all by your comment. It's merely dismissed. Minorities and outliers have no hope of controlling majoritarian government. They have much better prospects in a free market, where "greedy" capitalists are happy to cater to niche markets that governments ignore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such thing as a free market as you describe. That does not exist. When it comes to ACA, the electorate is going to demand what the providers are going to provide through their legislators.

The minuscule believers like you have no constitutional rights to be protected in this matter. It is what it is.

 

[Coyote]

Oh good God, you couldn't be that thick. There IS a black market for organs now, which would be less so with a legitimate market. Think of it this way: Do you think the black market for firearms would increase or decrease if we outlawed the sale of firearms?

Duh.

Thanks for proving my point.

No one is denying there is a black market for organs now, but it's very small because the process getting, preserving and matching organs is complicated and, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, most deaths result in organs that aren't useful for transplants.

I don't care about the black market because as we all know, whatever it's size now, it would be smaller with a legitimate, free market. It was true with alcohol, it's true with any product/service for which there is a demand

Is it true with firearms?

The black market in firearms is mostly those which are legal to own.

So what? What you keep overlooking is the fact that with a legitimate market, the supply would increase dramatically and the black market would be suppressed.

What evidence do you have to show this would be true in organs for transplant?

You have zero evidence that demand would all of sudden increase. Why? A free market would mean more people in need of transplants?

Demand would increase because people not normally eligible for reasons of active disease, prognosis, severity of disease could purchase organs.

That makes no damn sense. Further, the potential for abuse would not increase.

What evidence do you have for that?

After we ended prohibition, illegal alcohol became LESS of a problem, not more. The same would be true for body parts or any product/service that is prevented from meeting demand[/B][/COLOR]

Alcohol is not the same as organs. You can make an endless supply of alcohol. You have a finite supply of suitable organs.

So we should just let people die? That's ridiculous.

Not everyone can be saved.

Organs for donation will always be in short supply. The only thing that legalizing the selling of organs will do is alter the prioritization of who will get and increase medical costs for organ transplants.

But it will ensure MORE people get the transplants they need

What evidence do you have to support that?

There will still be a black market for those who can't afford it

A smaller one

and it will thrive.

Bullshit. If that were true, illegal alcohol would be a bigger problem today than during prohibition

The bottom line is that we know a free market for body parts would mean a greater supply and a more efficient delivery system for transplants.

The bottom line is we don't know that. There is no guarantee it will have any effect on the delivery system - that is a whole different problem.

Your fears that the black market would increase are not base in reality. Answer the question: If we were to outlaw the sale of firearms, would the black market increase or decrease?

The difference between organs and firearms (or alcohol) is no matter how you cut it - organs suitable for transplant are a scarce commodity. They can not be manufactured. They are based solely on the availability of donors (whether they are paid or donate) and on the condition of the organs at the time of death.

Selling organs would not change that but would only complicate the procedure and possibly prevent those in need who aren't cute kids or don't have the clout or the money to pay their way to the head of the line from getting a transplant in time.

The answer is obvious. When we outlaw the legitimate sale of that for which demand exists, black markets thrive. When we allow businesses to compete, with regulation of course, supply increases to meet demand, while prices faces downward pressure and service standards increase in the face of competing operations.

All things being equal, I agree - but organs are not firearms, alcohol, automobiles or hostess twinkies.

In the mean time, people are needlessly dying. To support that ACTUAL RESULT is shameful.

People are needlessly dying and you are trying to present it as an either/or dichotomy with only one solution. That's a fallacy.

The reasons for a shortage of organs are many, including:
lack of suitable organs on death (which doesn't change with selling organs)
lack of good coordination
restrictions that prohibit regions from working together
the right organ not being available at the right time

None of those will change by allowing people to sell organs.

Solutions can include educating people and encouraging them to be organ doners. Churches could get involved. Schools could get involved. People generously donate money to causes. They can donate organs if they know about it.

 

[dblack]

There is no such thing as a free market as you describe. That does not exist. When it comes to ACA, the electorate is going to demand what the providers are going to provide through their legislators.

The minuscule believers like you have no constitutional rights to be protected in this matter. It is what it is.

Exactly. As I said, no answer at all. Just a dismissive insult. Which I'm sure was your only intent.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is NO constitutional right to someone else's vital organs.

 

[Faun]

this is your future...now where did we hear about DEATH PANELS?
Links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 8:01 pm on June 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a bureaucratic nightmare: A little girl’s dying from cystic fibrosis and has three to five weeks to live unless she gets a lung transplant before then. The good news is that adult lungs can be modified for a child her age in a way that’ll save her life — except that, because she’s only 10, she’s not eligible for them. The “adult” list starts at 12; everyone younger than that goes to the children’s list, where lungs are much harder to come by. The question is, does Sebelius have the authority to suspend those age limitations and make the girl, Sarah Murnaghan, eligible for an adult transplant?

I honestly don’t know the answer. Murnaghan’s parents say Sebelius’s authority is clear; Sebelius herself claims that HHS’s lawyers have told her she can’t do it. A life hangs in the balance. On one side:


nder existing policy all adults in the region with her blood type will be offered the lungs first, her parents say, even those more stable and with less severe conditions. The girl’s parents called for a change in the policy after their appeal was denied…

United Network for Organ Sharing, also a nonprofit under contract with the government, said a committee would review the policy and the public would have a chance to comment on any proposed changes. But spokeswoman Anne Paschke said any changes most likely won’t come quickly enough to benefit Sarah or others like her.

“The policy development process is not fast,” she said in an email to The Associated Press. “Organ allocation policies are created to transplant as many people as possible overall, result in the fewest waiting list deaths overall and result in the best possible survival overall. In developing policies, committees and the board weigh data, medical evidence and experience, and public input.”

all of it here
Sebelius: I can?t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old « Hot Air

So to save that girl's life, you want the government to intrude on the private sector and decide whose lives should be saved? Is that about right?

 

[eflatminor]

The reasons for a shortage of organs are many, including:
lack of suitable organs on death (which doesn't change with selling organs)
lack of good coordination
restrictions that prohibit regions from working together
the right organ not being available at the right time

None of those will change by allowing people to sell organs.

Ah but it would change. You're beyond naive if you think a profit motive would not result in more organs becoming available for transplant as well as increased efficiency in the coordination of transportation to transplant centers. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a level of ignorance that nothing short of astounding. You're basically saying "money doesn't matter" when it comes to this particular commodity. That is insane, pure and simple.

But then I'm sure as this little girl dies, she'll understand that you and your central planners really do know what's best for us all...

 

[Oddball]

There is NO constitutional right to someone else's vital organs.

The right of self-ownership makes my organs mine to dispose of as I see fit.

 

[Coyote]

There is NO constitutional right to someone else's vital organs.

The right of self-ownership makes my organs mine to dispose of as I see fit.

That's the one argument that is difficult to refute.

Our bodies belong to us and no one else. No one has the right to tell us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies. It's the one of the major reasons I support a woman's right to choose abortion.

But I still do not think that the ability to sell organs will make any appreciable difference in organ availability and it will do more to harm the system's current fairness than help.

 

[Coyote]

The reasons for a shortage of organs are many, including:
lack of suitable organs on death (which doesn't change with selling organs)
lack of good coordination
restrictions that prohibit regions from working together
the right organ not being available at the right time

None of those will change by allowing people to sell organs.

Ah but it would change. You're beyond naive if you think a profit motive would not result in more organs becoming available for transplant as well as increased efficiency in the coordination of transportation to transplant centers.

A profit motive doesn't fix everything and it doesn't address a fundamental truth about organs: they are scarce no matter what. All it really will do is scramble the allocation process and increase cost for the entire process.

There is already profit at work in the surgery itself - seems to me that would be sufficient to increase efficiency if that were indeed the cause of the inefficiencies.

To suggest otherwise demonstrates a level of ignorance that nothing short of astounding. You're basically saying "money doesn't matter" when it comes to this particular commodity. That is insane, pure and simple.

I'm not saying "money doesn't matter" - that's more of the same false dichotomy. I'm saying money doesn't fix everything and some things are inherently unprofitable or running them at a profit risks losing the mission.

But then I'm sure as this little girl dies, she'll understand that you and your central planners really do know what's best for us all...

No one ever wants to see a child die but the truth of the matter is, her disease is going to kill her sooner rather than later and a lung transplant will buy her maybe another five years before her disease clogs her lungs up again. What you are recommending is not going to magically produce tons of viable organs to save everyone. It may or it may not produce a few more but you haven't offered anything but theory to support your claims.

Look at the leading causes of death:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Out of those deaths, how many will likely produce viable transplants of major organs: lungs, heart, liver? How many aren't deaths at the end of series of chronic illness?

As far as I know, kidneys are the only ones that can be donated by a living person and there you might see an increase with a profit motive because the person who gets the profit will still be living.

 

[Oddball]

A profit motive doesn't fix everything and it doesn't address a fundamental truth about organs: they are scarce no matter what. All it really will do is scramble the allocation process and increase cost for the entire process.

Straw man argument.

Nobody is claiming that a market-based system would fix everything....Only that it would be a vast improvement over the monopoly model currently in place.

 

[Coyote]

A profit motive doesn't fix everything and it doesn't address a fundamental truth about organs: they are scarce no matter what. All it really will do is scramble the allocation process and increase cost for the entire process.

Straw man argument.

Nobody is claiming that a market-based system would fix everything....Only that it would be a vast improvement over the monopoly model currently in place.

Kind of sounds like something close to that is being claimed in the following

That's true. Of course, the fact it fails miserably to meet demand is something we should just overlook?

Yea, pass.

It fails to meet demand because there is a limited supply of dead people with organs to donate you idiot my lord you are stupid.

Which would not be the case with a profit motive. You were saying something about stupid???

The profit motive would magically resolve the limited supply and that is what my comment was addressing.

 

[eflatminor]

A profit motive doesn't fix everything

Strawman. I never stated nor implied that.

and it doesn't address a fundamental truth about organs: they are scarce no matter what.

So frickin' what? Just because a commodity is scarce does not mean profit cannot be sought or that competition cannot take place. LOTS of scare commodities out there that are traded in markets.

Sorry, but your argument fails miserably.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is NO constitutional right to someone else's vital organs.

The right of self-ownership makes my organs mine to dispose of as I see fit.

It sounds like what you object to is the concept of donating organs. You want to get the money now, and they don't get the organs until you die. The problem is, no one would buy them. There is no guarantee that those organs would be in the slightest bit useable. There's no guarantee that you wouldn't have sold those organs to half a dozen people either. Like selling babies. Pregnant women will sell a baby (when it is born) to a bunch of people and then never be seen again.

 

[Oddball]

There is NO constitutional right to someone else's vital organs.

The right of self-ownership makes my organs mine to dispose of as I see fit.

It sounds like what you object to is the concept of donating organs. You want to get the money now, and they don't get the organs until you die. The problem is, no one would buy them. There is no guarantee that those organs would be in the slightest bit useable. There's no guarantee that you wouldn't have sold those organs to half a dozen people either. Like selling babies. Pregnant women will sell a baby (when it is born) to a bunch of people and then never be seen again.

Other than the current monopoly model of organ distribution, I object to nothing.

Insofar as your guarantee argument goes, the guarantor would be the organ broker or some other third party, that would screen for worthiness of the marketed organs...Happens all the time...Ever heard of Underwriter's Laboratories?

Were I so inclined to sell one of my kidneys to a suitable person in need of one, that should be nobody's business but ours.

The selling babies for their organs thing is just plain absurd...That's more likely to happen in a communistic environment with a eugenicist running the show, than in an honest free enterprise environment.

See how self-ownership works here?