My response would be something like “so the people rich enough to purchase kidneys are the only ones who this effects.” but someone else has already responded similarly. I appreciate you listening to other people and not just dismissing them outright in your other comments though. We get that a lot.
I think there’s an order of magnitude difference in effective wealth or more still between the median person this applies to and who can purchase a kidney. I make enough money that I pay taxes, and I have a bit of savings, but I could not realistically purchase a kidney.
But would you ever sell a kidney just so you can pay less in taxes? Cutting your own life a decade short (or possibly even dying on the operating table) just so you didn’t pay those taxes? I can’t imagine a scenario where it would ever be beneficial to anyone to want to do this, unless they needed the money (or tax credit) so badly that they had no other choice.
I’ll admit I was wrong about people having shorter lifespans. However, I wouldn’t say that source is convincing me of the opposite:
Why do living kidney donors tend to live longer? There are several reasons. First, potential kidney donors undergo rigorous medical screening, and only people in the best of health are accepted as donors. So living donors are already healthier than the general population before they donate, and would probably have lived longer anyway.
Second, living kidney donors tend to take excellent care of themselves post-donation. Undergoing donation surgery and living with a single kidney gives donors a heightened awareness of their own health and the importance of healthy habits. The tendency of living kidney donors to take extra good care of themselves by exercising, eating right, and avoiding poor habits like smoking and excess alcohol consumption, can translate to a longer life.
Healthy people live longer lives, them donating a kidney isn’t related to that. Also, an organisation devoted to convincing people to donate their kidneys is obviously going to be pro-kidney donation. But if we go back to the original article, the goal is to expand kidney donation. Kidneys are usually donated by very healthy people, so losing a kidney doesn’t affect them all that much, but what about unhealthy people? Someone desperate enough to sell a kidney for money (or “tax credits” or whatever) isn’t probably in the best health mentally or physically (financial woes tend to do that to people). Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not anti-organ donation, but I do not trust the US healthcare system to do it in any positive way, like everything else over there, it will be abused for profit, and that will mean people will be at risk.
You mentioned that you’re Canadian, look at the recent euthanasia procedures passed in your country. Something pushed as a means of “helping the terminally ill die with dignity” has been used to encourage the disabled or mentally ill to kill themselves to save the state’s money. We shouldn’t examine a proposal based solely on their slick, shiny pitch. They’re always going to make it sound like a 100% positive thing that we’d be fools to not adopt. But they’re trying to sell the idea to us, they’re not trustworthy. We should examine their proposal based on how it could be misused or abused, whether it could lead to a worse situation, whether the proposal will even fix the problem it claims to be trying to fix, or if it will just be used as another avenue to funnel money to the wealthy.
Also your tone policing has no place here. If you’re so fragile that someone being snarky on the internet is something you can’t handle, you should leave.
Yeah, relax plebes. It’s just tax credits (for now). People aren’t financially desperate enough to give away part of their bodies for so little (for now). You’re safe (lol).
This proposal is well-researched and is attempting to make donation financially neutral, so there is no reason somebody would sell their kidney for financial gain.
You’re just imagining a different, ghoulish system being proposed and attacking that rather than actually considering the proposal mentioned, which could save many lives and end a lot of suffering – and would not exploit the lower class to ghoulishly take their kidneys.
How is a $50,000 refundable tax credit supposed to be financially neutral? That’s very clearly a financial gain! A refundable tax credit means that the donor will receive either a credit on federal taxes for five years of $10,000 per year if they pay federal taxes, or a check from the government for $10,000 for five years if they do not pay federal taxes. That would be a life-changing amount of money for a lot of people.
Absolutely not. Ad hominem would be if I attacked the character of whatup without addressing their argument, like if I said “in your post history you advocate for genocide, so why should I listen to you?” (not that they did this ofc.)
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SELL THEIR ORGANS JUST TO AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO LIVE.
It’s tax credits. People who can’t afford basic housing won’t be able to get a penny from this.
My response would be something like “so the people rich enough to purchase kidneys are the only ones who this effects.” but someone else has already responded similarly. I appreciate you listening to other people and not just dismissing them outright in your other comments though. We get that a lot.
I think there’s an order of magnitude difference in effective wealth or more still between the median person this applies to and who can purchase a kidney. I make enough money that I pay taxes, and I have a bit of savings, but I could not realistically purchase a kidney.
But would you ever sell a kidney just so you can pay less in taxes? Cutting your own life a decade short (or possibly even dying on the operating table) just so you didn’t pay those taxes? I can’t imagine a scenario where it would ever be beneficial to anyone to want to do this, unless they needed the money (or tax credit) so badly that they had no other choice.
a decade short? where did you get that idea?
Having one kidney shortens life expectancy. Donating a kidney therefore shortens life expectancy, because 2 kidneys minus 1 kidney equals 1 kidney.
Can you provide a source for this? All I can find online is a correlation between kidney donation and increased life expectency.
Also, please, chill on the sarcasm.
I’ll admit I was wrong about people having shorter lifespans. However, I wouldn’t say that source is convincing me of the opposite:
Healthy people live longer lives, them donating a kidney isn’t related to that. Also, an organisation devoted to convincing people to donate their kidneys is obviously going to be pro-kidney donation. But if we go back to the original article, the goal is to expand kidney donation. Kidneys are usually donated by very healthy people, so losing a kidney doesn’t affect them all that much, but what about unhealthy people? Someone desperate enough to sell a kidney for money (or “tax credits” or whatever) isn’t probably in the best health mentally or physically (financial woes tend to do that to people). Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not anti-organ donation, but I do not trust the US healthcare system to do it in any positive way, like everything else over there, it will be abused for profit, and that will mean people will be at risk.
You mentioned that you’re Canadian, look at the recent euthanasia procedures passed in your country. Something pushed as a means of “helping the terminally ill die with dignity” has been used to encourage the disabled or mentally ill to kill themselves to save the state’s money. We shouldn’t examine a proposal based solely on their slick, shiny pitch. They’re always going to make it sound like a 100% positive thing that we’d be fools to not adopt. But they’re trying to sell the idea to us, they’re not trustworthy. We should examine their proposal based on how it could be misused or abused, whether it could lead to a worse situation, whether the proposal will even fix the problem it claims to be trying to fix, or if it will just be used as another avenue to funnel money to the wealthy.
Also your tone policing has no place here. If you’re so fragile that someone being snarky on the internet is something you can’t handle, you should leave.
Yeah, relax plebes. It’s just tax credits (for now). People aren’t financially desperate enough to give away part of their bodies for so little (for now). You’re safe (lol).
You’re making a slippery slope argument? I think?
This proposal is well-researched and is attempting to make donation financially neutral, so there is no reason somebody would sell their kidney for financial gain.
You’re just imagining a different, ghoulish system being proposed and attacking that rather than actually considering the proposal mentioned, which could save many lives and end a lot of suffering – and would not exploit the lower class to ghoulishly take their kidneys.
How is a $50,000 refundable tax credit supposed to be financially neutral? That’s very clearly a financial gain! A refundable tax credit means that the donor will receive either a credit on federal taxes for five years of $10,000 per year if they pay federal taxes, or a check from the government for $10,000 for five years if they do not pay federal taxes. That would be a life-changing amount of money for a lot of people.
You’re making an ad hominem argument? I think?
Absolutely not. Ad hominem would be if I attacked the character of whatup without addressing their argument, like if I said “in your post history you advocate for genocide, so why should I listen to you?” (not that they did this ofc.)