4 ms·
How about people can sell it and the gov't has to pay for it when someone needs it? Seems a lot less distopian that way.
by extension 15y ago
How about people can sell it and the gov't has to pay for it when someone needs it? Seems a lot less distopian that way.
- sneak 15y agoThis may be the very first legitimate use of tax dollars I've ever heard of.
- diolpah 15y agoWell, I think the question of "who pays for it", while important, is orthogonal to this particular issue, which is about increasing the available supply. If a poor but healthy south asian immigrant wants startup capital to open a restaurant, and Amit wants a long and fruitful life, a legal market that allowed such a transaction would dramatically increase the supply of available materials. And it may even be possible that this increased supply would drive the end cost of living tissue down. Now to be clear, I don't want to detract from Amit's immediate issue - this thread should be about helping him, not lead off a discussion that has nothing do to with his immediate problem( nobody here is going to change the legal framework within a month ). But I would like to at least understand the downsides to allowing markets in living tissue.
- extension 15y agoWell, I think the question of "who pays for it", while important, is orthogonal to this particular issue I would say it's at the heart of the issue. Presumably, the rationale for disallowing a body parts market is that, while there might be more supply overall, there would be less available to the poor, because they would be competing with the rich. If the cost is socialized then that issue goes away.
- Symmetry 15y agoI don't see people holding out for that much more money than the surgery costs, and given the alternatives available to insurance companies I don't see why they wouldn't pay for the organ. Keeping someone alive on dialasis, say, is really very expensive.