3 ms·

If they want my organ, I’d ask them how much they want to pay me or my family for it. The medical industry gouges patients and derives exorbitant wealth from ou

If they want my organ, I’d ask them how much they want to pay me or my family for it. The medical industry gouges patients and derives exorbitant wealth from our “donations,” and there needs to be an equivalent exchange. If my hospital bill for a single night stay is 50k, they can pay me 50k for my organ. I’m certain hospitals can pay far more than that, with the amount of insurance fraud they commit.

arp242 6y ago
That 50k will just be charged to the recipient.
- tediousdemise 6y ago
  What would prevent a contractual agreement that states they could not do such a thing?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kelnos 6y ago
This is actually a pretty good point. Yes, a person truly in need, often in a life-or-death situation, will benefit from that organ, but the hospital and staff performing that transplant will also benefit financially (especially here in the US where health care bills are out of control). Why shouldn't the estate of the deceased get rewarded for the deceased's generosity? (Of course, I fully expect this added cost to just get passed on to the recipient, which isn't a great outcome.)
- tediousdemise 6y ago
  I would hope that legislation could protect patients from medical providers passing the costs on to them. It seems to me that the medical profession is financially imbalanced with respect to the rest of society. In the US, they are propped up by mandatory health insurance requirements and are all but guaranteed income, whether it’s from private insurance companies, taxpayer dollars (a la Medicaid/Medicare), or some poor unfortunate soul’s lifelong medical debt payments. As long as people are being born, medical problems will be a dime a dozen, and wealth earned by medical practitioners will scale with the size of the population.
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
This sounds like a very good argument for socialised healthcare. Which, last time I checked, was something the UK has.
noisy_boy 6y ago
The rules also work vice-versa. If you are in an accident and need an organ, would you prefer to bid/pay or would you prefer the donation to be under current rules where there is no payment to be made to the donor's side? Whatever approach is chosen, applies equally to when you are a donor or a recipient. In case of zero payment, both sides are balanced; in case of payment, it could be skewed - you may have to pay a lot more when you are a recipient vs. what you receive when you are a donor or vice versa. Unless, there is a law to cover payment/amount etc and even then, different states/countries can have different laws.

arp242 6y ago

That 50k will just be charged to the recipient.

tediousdemise 6y ago
What would prevent a contractual agreement that states they could not do such a thing?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 6y ago

This is actually a pretty good point. Yes, a person truly in need, often in a life-or-death situation, will benefit from that organ, but the hospital and staff performing that transplant will also benefit financially (especially here in the US where health care bills are out of control). Why shouldn't the estate of the deceased get rewarded for the deceased's generosity? (Of course, I fully expect this added cost to just get passed on to the recipient, which isn't a great outcome.)

tediousdemise 6y ago
I would hope that legislation could protect patients from medical providers passing the costs on to them. It seems to me that the medical profession is financially imbalanced with respect to the rest of society. In the US, they are propped up by mandatory health insurance requirements and are all but guaranteed income, whether it’s from private insurance companies, taxpayer dollars (a la Medicaid/Medicare), or some poor unfortunate soul’s lifelong medical debt payments. As long as people are being born, medical problems will be a dime a dozen, and wealth earned by medical practitioners will scale with the size of the population.

lawtalkinghuman 6y ago

This sounds like a very good argument for socialised healthcare. Which, last time I checked, was something the UK has.

noisy_boy 6y ago

The rules also work vice-versa. If you are in an accident and need an organ, would you prefer to bid/pay or would you prefer the donation to be under current rules where there is no payment to be made to the donor's side? Whatever approach is chosen, applies equally to when you are a donor or a recipient. In case of zero payment, both sides are balanced; in case of payment, it could be skewed - you may have to pay a lot more when you are a recipient vs. what you receive when you are a donor or vice versa. Unless, there is a law to cover payment/amount etc and even then, different states/countries can have different laws.