No, it's not what I "chose to hear" - you said that better surgeons charge more.. That's great that you got the best surgeon in the country by chance. If you wanted to be *certain* you'd get the best, wouldn't it cost more?
No, not "except" then. Even in that case, your employer isn't allowed to beat (or kill) you if he feels your work is sub-par. And there's the thing about his owning your offspring.
That you're even making the comparison is hideous.
I asked because you said "if health care were better, people wouldn't have to make that decision" but it sounds like even when it's 'better', the best care comes at a premium.
1.
the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision.
"he is held up as an object of ridicule"
synonyms: mockery, derision, laughter, scorn, scoffing, contempt, jeering, sneering, sneers, jibes, jibing, teasing, taunts, taunting, badinage, chaffing, sarcasm, satire;
I believe that's sometimes the case. For example, the increases in available loans and grants for secondary education over the past three decades have resulted in university costs rising to absorb pretty much exactly what's available. Nobody should be surprised at this.
And people selling things doesn't (only) depend on the economy adjusting itself. People sell things to get better things (trade in used car for new car, sell house to fund better house) or to finanace a lifestyle (sell stuff, use proceeds to fund a year off somewhere).
Yes, I absolutely ridicule the comparison of ownership of a person, including free rein to beat them and own their offspring, with the fact that people find themselves in difficult paycheck-to-paycheck situations in dead-end jobs.
People who are "better off" - whether because they're smarter, can throw a ball farther, had rich parents, or - god forbid - because they worked harder, saved more, and lived more responsible - will *always* be in a better position than someone who isn't, whether it's for fair or unfair (to whomever's judging) reasons.
Yeah: if the money I'd get from a kidney gave me a chance to beat a much more fatal disease? I'd probably take it too. And that's a rational decision, and a choice not available while the sale is illegal. Correction: not available in the "First world" under good medical conditions.
I pointed this out in another response: you're claiming that two dead in need of organs is better than one.
That comparison is ridiculous. The linked article equates an hourly wage with a diluted version of slavery: "similarities between owning and renting a person". leaving out the fact that the "rented" person is not prevented by the employer from quitting.
Can you imagine someone choosing to lose a kidney rather than just declare bankruptcy? I can see the issue if the potential donor is an addict (drug/gambling) but would imagine a mental health checkout as well as the standard medical checks to confirm that a donor is suitable.
That's like creationists pointing out that evolution is "just a theory".
If people or their estates are allowed to gain from the sale of their organs - which they aren't now - then one of three things will occur:
- fewer organs will be donated - no change in the number of organs donated - more organs donated
Money in exchange for organs is an obvious, direct, and large incentive for the last outcome. To rebut that it isn't flies in the face of the obvious.
When asked how long a year is, do you recalculate Earth's orbit? When out-of-season produce imported across the equator costs double, are you surprised when less of it is purchased?
My agreeing to accept $X for my estate (family/cause/etc) for my liver/cornea/whatever is no more "exploitative" than any other transaction. Possibly less so, since I'll be dead and won't miss the part(s) you're claiming I'm being "exploited" out of.
To compare it to slavery is super-silly - if postmortem ownership of a no-longer-needed part of my remains is equal to "slavery" then so is the sale of an hour of my labor to an employer.
"Why should someone who can afford to buy an organ be more entitled to live that some poor schmuck who can't?"
Right, better two die than one, right? By that measure a good surgeon shouldn't be able to charge more than a mediocre one.
"A Nobel prize winner in economics has nothing to add to a discussion of medical ethics -- because as far as I can tell, economists have no care or understanding of ethics."
It's not his job to decide the ethics. His area of expertise allows him to tell us that paying people for their organs will result in more of them being available. Which isn't really in dispute.
I have been saying this for years. If it's so repugnant to attach a cost to an organ, why isn't it disgusting for the surgeon, anaesthetist, and hospital to charge? The organ itself is the least supply and most demand of those things. Allowing a person (or their estate) to be paid for it will only make more available.
Yes, obviously. It can be surmised from the title of my post that the problem isn't the telco knowing where you're connecting, but that they're perfectly happy to collect and turn over that information to government agencies without a proper warrant.
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
The invention of the automobile and the economy of scale and mass production that made them affordable for many people resulted in a decline in use of horses for transportation, and thus lower demand for horseshoes.
That's another silly statement. It's not "tilted" - most ideologically-weighted cases come down 5-4, and do not always swing one way or the other. Roberts was derided by the Left as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, yet he twisted himself into a pretzel justifying his opinion that Obamacare is constitutional.
Well, that's silly. They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions. It allowed Congress to change the formula determining which local and state governments have more strict requirements under the Voting Rights Act. And other stuff I can't remember.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiot.
Oh, stop it. Homelessness is still a universe apart from being owned by another person.
No, it's not what I "chose to hear" - you said that better surgeons charge more.. That's great that you got the best surgeon in the country by chance. If you wanted to be *certain* you'd get the best, wouldn't it cost more?
No, not "except" then. Even in that case, your employer isn't allowed to beat (or kill) you if he feels your work is sub-par. And there's the thing about his owning your offspring.
That you're even making the comparison is hideous.
I asked because you said "if health care were better, people wouldn't have to make that decision" but it sounds like even when it's 'better', the best care comes at a premium.
I think I asked this somewhere else: in your version of better heath care, would a good surgeon be able to charge more than an average one?
"ridicule" does not involve logic:
ridicule
ridikyool/
noun
noun: ridicule
1.
the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision.
"he is held up as an object of ridicule"
synonyms: mockery, derision, laughter, scorn, scoffing, contempt, jeering, sneering, sneers, jibes, jibing, teasing, taunts, taunting, badinage, chaffing, sarcasm, satire;
Nothing I read about the changes in bankruptcy says anything about the $100K limit. Can you point me somewhere to read about it?
I believe that's sometimes the case. For example, the increases in available loans and grants for secondary education over the past three decades have resulted in university costs rising to absorb pretty much exactly what's available. Nobody should be surprised at this.
And people selling things doesn't (only) depend on the economy adjusting itself. People sell things to get better things (trade in used car for new car, sell house to fund better house) or to finanace a lifestyle (sell stuff, use proceeds to fund a year off somewhere).
Yes, I absolutely ridicule the comparison of ownership of a person, including free rein to beat them and own their offspring, with the fact that people find themselves in difficult paycheck-to-paycheck situations in dead-end jobs.
Seriously?
That's quite a stretch. Especially considering the number of people in religions which forbid it.
People who are "better off" - whether because they're smarter, can throw a ball farther, had rich parents, or - god forbid - because they worked harder, saved more, and lived more responsible - will *always* be in a better position than someone who isn't, whether it's for fair or unfair (to whomever's judging) reasons.
Yeah: if the money I'd get from a kidney gave me a chance to beat a much more fatal disease? I'd probably take it too. And that's a rational decision, and a choice not available while the sale is illegal. Correction: not available in the "First world" under good medical conditions.
I pointed this out in another response: you're claiming that two dead in need of organs is better than one.
That comparison is ridiculous. The linked article equates an hourly wage with a diluted version of slavery: "similarities between owning and renting a person". leaving out the fact that the "rented" person is not prevented by the employer from quitting.
Can you imagine someone choosing to lose a kidney rather than just declare bankruptcy? I can see the issue if the potential donor is an addict (drug/gambling) but would imagine a mental health checkout as well as the standard medical checks to confirm that a donor is suitable.
That's like creationists pointing out that evolution is "just a theory".
If people or their estates are allowed to gain from the sale of their organs - which they aren't now - then one of three things will occur:
- fewer organs will be donated
- no change in the number of organs donated
- more organs donated
Money in exchange for organs is an obvious, direct, and large incentive for the last outcome. To rebut that it isn't flies in the face of the obvious.
When asked how long a year is, do you recalculate Earth's orbit? When out-of-season produce imported across the equator costs double, are you surprised when less of it is purchased?
My agreeing to accept $X for my estate (family/cause/etc) for my liver/cornea/whatever is no more "exploitative" than any other transaction. Possibly less so, since I'll be dead and won't miss the part(s) you're claiming I'm being "exploited" out of.
To compare it to slavery is super-silly - if postmortem ownership of a no-longer-needed part of my remains is equal to "slavery" then so is the sale of an hour of my labor to an employer.
"Why should someone who can afford to buy an organ be more entitled to live that some poor schmuck who can't?"
Right, better two die than one, right? By that measure a good surgeon shouldn't be able to charge more than a mediocre one.
"A Nobel prize winner in economics has nothing to add to a discussion of medical ethics -- because as far as I can tell, economists have no care or understanding of ethics."
It's not his job to decide the ethics. His area of expertise allows him to tell us that paying people for their organs will result in more of them being available. Which isn't really in dispute.
I have been saying this for years. If it's so repugnant to attach a cost to an organ, why isn't it disgusting for the surgeon, anaesthetist, and hospital to charge? The organ itself is the least supply and most demand of those things. Allowing a person (or their estate) to be paid for it will only make more available.
Yes, obviously. It can be surmised from the title of my post that the problem isn't the telco knowing where you're connecting, but that they're perfectly happy to collect and turn over that information to government agencies without a proper warrant.
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
The invention of the automobile and the economy of scale and mass production that made them affordable for many people resulted in a decline in use of horses for transportation, and thus lower demand for horseshoes.
What does a viewer "give back"? Do they strip the commercials out? If not, they're giving their sponsors a wider audience.
Iron lungs and horseshoes are still way down.
That's another silly statement. It's not "tilted" - most ideologically-weighted cases come down 5-4, and do not always swing one way or the other. Roberts was derided by the Left as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, yet he twisted himself into a pretzel justifying his opinion that Obamacare is constitutional.
Well, that's silly. They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions. It allowed Congress to change the formula determining which local and state governments have more strict requirements under the Voting Rights Act. And other stuff I can't remember.