Teens dies after insurance company denies payment

[Timshel]

And that makes it better?

"socialist" is crap too. Total rubbish strawman arguments, if you have nothing to argue what I have stated you shout "socialist" then pretend you made a salient argument.

Saying that one could not initiate force based on their total economic power is total garbage.

It's not a strawman. This is the basic argument of a socialist. Setup some silly scenario where refusal of an offer to trade results in death for one person. I mean, you could use your same silly scenario for any sort of economic trade, from offer of a job, food, medical treatment, housing, on and on.

And I have argued your comments.

An offer to trade is not a form of force.

This starving person that is offering his organ, what now will he do when you outlaw organ sales? Starve? You have presented the scenario that these are his only two choices and apparently you would prefer he starved to death. Is it that you expect he will then actually escape your silly scenario and make some other trade for the food he needs? But would not that trade be an act of force as well by the person offering it to him? Or are others obliged to give him values in exchange for nothing?

You are not able to sale yourself into slavery by definition not by law. There is a reason why the 13th says "slavery or INVOLUNTARY servitude."

 

[Timshel]

Out of all my favorite people to fuck with, Dano and RS have to be the best.

Does not "fuck" with me any. You make zero arguments and do nothing but act like a spaz.

 

[Damocles]

It's not a strawman. This is the basic argument of a socialist. Setup some silly scenario where refusal of an offer to trade results in death for one person. I mean, you could use your same silly scenario for any sort of economic trade, from offer of a job, food, medical treatment, housing, on and on.

Except one involves internal organs and clearly can effect their life. Pretending that no force can be applied through economic power is pretense. The government's only role is to keep you from attempting to force me into something. This is one scenario where proper regulation could and should be enforced.

And I have argued your comments.

No, you didn't you just said "socialist". I can repeat that too, it doesn't argue what you have said though.

An offer to trade is not a form of force.

When it involves the direct health of a person who is in desperate need it can be. A nation, person, family, can and will act against the best future for themselves or family when in a desperate position. A nation, killing rain forests for immediate gain, a family selling a daughter into "foster care", all of these come about because of an offer of trade and a desperate need. One so desperate that they can ill afford to deny any offer...

Pretending that all trade is benign is preposterous.

This starving person that is offering his organ, what now will he do when you outlaw organ sales? Starve?

Receive charity. What do they do now?

You have presented the scenario that these are his only two choices and apparently you would prefer he starved to death. Is it that you expect he will then actually escape your silly scenario and make some other trade for the food he needs? But would not that trade be an act of force as well by the person offering it to him? Or are others obliged to give him values in exchange for nothing?

Rubbish. I gave no "scenario" in such a manner other than to give the reality that people will work against their own if the need is desperate enough. That one can, use economic power as force, even if you don't want to recognize the reality.

You are not able to sale yourself into slavery by definition not by law. There is a reason why the 13th says "slavery or INVOLUNTARY servitude."

This is idiotic. Whether you call it servitude, or slavery, is it in the best interest of my family to have me in it and not with them? Could there be a possibility that I might act against my own best interest because of desperate need?

 

[Timshel]

Except one involves internal organs and clearly can effect their life.

What has that to do with whether trade is force? Are you arguing that it ok to use force against others as long as you are not taking their organs?

Pretending that no force can be applied through economic power is pretense. The government's only role is to keep you from attempting to force me into something. This is one scenario where proper regulation could and should be enforced.

The government should regulate trade because it is a form of force? That's not socialist nonsense?

Receive charity. What do they do now?

So you are saying these people then have three choices with legalized organ sales... starve, receive charity, or sale an organ... but somehow they are then forced to sale their organs? Don't get it. Will legalized organ sales somehow eliminate charity?

This is idiotic. Whether you call it servitude, or slavery, is it in the best interest of my family to have me in it and not with them? Could there be a possibility that I might act against my own best interest because of desperate need?

Whether a trade is in the best interest of your family has nothing at all to do with the nature of force or slavery. Some will argue that a high paid person should spend more time with his family. And maybe they should but calling that slavery or force is what is IDIOTIC.

And again... if this desperate need is real and you are saying others may not offer trade with them when they are in this state then you are arguing for one of two things. Either others be forced (not fucking charity... if charity is available then they have no reason to accept the trade and your house of cards falls apart) to satisfy their needs or that those needs go unsatisfied. You are arguing for government force against those that can satisfy the need or using government to force those in need to go without.

 

[uscitizen]

It's not a strawman. This is the basic argument of a socialist. Setup some silly scenario where refusal of an offer to trade results in death for one person. I mean, you could use your same silly scenario for any sort of economic trade, from offer of a job, food, medical treatment, housing, on and on.

And I have argued your comments.

An offer to trade is not a form of force.

This starving person that is offering his organ, what now will he do when you outlaw organ sales? Starve? You have presented the scenario that these are his only two choices and apparently you would prefer he starved to death. Is it that you expect he will then actually escape your silly scenario and make some other trade for the food he needs? But would not that trade be an act of force as well by the person offering it to him? Or are others obliged to give him values in exchange for nothing?

You are not able to sale yourself into slavery by definition not by law. There is a reason why the 13th says "slavery or INVOLUNTARY servitude."

Would want an organ from a starving poor person ?

I guess you like second rate parts ?

 

[Timshel]

Rubbish. I gave no "scenario" in such a manner other than to give the reality that people will work against their own if the need is desperate enough.

This is what you said...

The reality is that often those who will wind up selling the organs are not those who "want" to do it. They won't have woken up one day and say, "What a fabulous idea! Let's take away any redundancy I have to keep my health in case one of my kidneys goes down!"

It will be, "My family is going to starve if I don't."

Now you are going back on that and saying charity is available. Is selling a kidney somehow more attractive than free money?

The fact is very few organs would be coming from living donors. The greater supply of organs from deceased donors would not make the price very attractive for a living donor. Not to mention, the procedure to extract it would be more costly than the one to harvest an organ from the deceased and further reduce the amount paid to a living donor.

 

[Timshel]

Would want an organ from a starving poor person ?

I guess you like second rate parts ?

??? Another senseless post from usc. I am starting to think all of your post are meant as humor, it's just that they are rarely ever funny.

 

[Damocles]

What has that to do with whether trade is force? Are you arguing that it ok to use force against others as long as you are not taking their organs?

It isn't okay to intiate force under any condition.

The government should regulate trade because it is a form of force? That's not socialist nonsense?

The government should regulate some trade because it can become a form of force.

So you are saying these people then have three choices with legalized organ sales... starve, receive charity, or sale an organ... but somehow they are then forced to sale their organs? Don't get it. Will legalized organ sales somehow eliminate charity?

You are becoming idiotic. I am saying that they have more than one choice, however one can limit their choices through economic means, thus creating a condition in which they initiate force. Pretending that a form of power such as economics can be can never become force is pretense.

Whether a trade is in the best interest of your family has nothing at all to do with the nature of force or slavery. Some will argue that a high paid person should spend more time with his family. And maybe they should but calling that slavery or force is what is IDIOTIC.

What is idiotic is pretending that one cannot create conditions using economic power that can end with that being the only choice available, you can initiate force with any form of power, including that of economics.

And again... if this desperate need is real and you are saying others may not offer trade with them when they are in this state then you are arguing for one of two things. Either others be forced (not fucking charity... if charity is available then they have no reason to accept the trade and your house of cards falls apart) to satisfy their needs or that those needs go unsatisfied. You are arguing for government force against those that can satisfy the need or using government to force those in need to go without.

There would be no incentive to remove charity from their list of available resources through economic means (paynig people off to get what they want) and thus create a condition where only one option remains if this were regulated. Pretending that one cannot utilize this form of power imorally but every other form can be is pretense.


I'm having fun arguing a position I wouldn't normally take...

Anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

??? Another senseless post from usc. I am starting to think all of your post are meant as humor, it's just that they are rarely ever funny.

Hey there senseless. The poor take the poorest care of their body. Smoking, drugs, poor nutrition equals second rate body parts.

Hey I have a body part you can have after I am gone.
Guess which one ? And where I would recommend your putting it

btw I am not the one who voted for Bush.

 

[Timshel]

It isn't okay to intiate force under any condition.

Then, by your argument, any trade is possible force and should be regulated by government or outlawed. Congratulations, you are a socialist.

The government should regulate some trade because it can become a form of force.

Well, it's really any trade, but covered above.

You are becoming idiotic. I am saying that they have more than one choice, however one can limit their choices through economic means, thus creating a condition in which they initiate force. Pretending that a form of power such as economics can be can never become force is pretense.

You are not making any sense. You are playing in some fantasy world to justify some bs emotional appeal. How does legalized organ sales limit the choice of charity? If charity is available with or without legalized sale then the seller has options other than selling his organs. If it is not then making sale illegal insures that the sellers desperate needs will not be satisified.

You want to set up some nonsense situation where the with legal sales the seller is faced with death or sale of an organ. Then when I point out that then would mean death if the sale were prohibited you pretend there are other options.

What is idiotic is pretending that one cannot create conditions using economic power that can end with that being the only choice available, you can initiate force with any form of power, including that of economics.

Above... Again, if this condition exists and we outlaw trade that might relieve what the person who is supposedly being forced sees as the worse choice (e.g., starvation of me and my family or sale my kidney... starvation seems worse) then we are forcing them to suffer that worse scenario. We cannot relieve that by outlawing trade. No instead we have to use ACTUAL (not some wild scenario fantasy bullshit) force to take what is needed to satisfy the need.

There would be no incentive to remove charity from their list of available resources through economic means (paynig people off to get what they want) and thus create a condition where only one option remains if this were regulated. Pretending that one cannot utilize this form of power imorally but every other form can be is pretense.

So now we are going to throw in some nonsense about the buyer bribing the charity not to help the seller??? There are a lot of charities and charitable people out there. I mean, it's not as if the buyer could hope to bribe everyone and why the hell would he when organs would be quite available in a legal market? Your scenario is getting nuttier by the second. And as I said before, we can use this same "reasoning" to justify government involvement in any transaction.

 

[Damocles]

Then, by your argument, any trade is possible force and should be regulated by government or outlawed. Congratulations, you are a socialist.

It is possible to use the threat of denial of trade as force. This only works if it is a poor nation indeed.

Well, it's really any trade, but covered above.

The same.

You are not making any sense. You are playing in some fantasy world to justify some bs emotional appeal. How does legalized organ sales limit the choice of charity? If charity is available with or without legalized sale then the seller has options other than selling his organs. If it is not then making sale illegal insures that the sellers desperate needs will not be satisified.

You are. If I was the largest amount of money that went to the charity, I needed your organ, I took that money away to create the need then suggested I would fire your sorry behind if you didn't sell me your organ what choice would you have? It is all "trade"? Every bit of it would be legal, but it would force you into the position that you would 'need' to sell.

You want to set up some nonsense situation where the with legal sales the seller is faced with death or sale of an organ. Then when I point out that then would mean death if the sale were prohibited you pretend there are other options.

No, you attempt to assume that unregulated trade would make it impossible to create a situation that could be force. You are living in a fantasy. Monopoly situations could indeed create that very scenario.

Above... Again, if this condition exists and we outlaw trade that might relieve what the person who is supposedly being forced sees as the worse choice (e.g., starvation of me and my family or sale my kidney... starvation seems worse) then we are forcing them to suffer that worse scenario. We cannot relieve that by outlawing trade. No instead we have to use ACTUAL (not some wild scenario fantasy bullshit) force to take what is needed to satisfy the need.

Nobody is suggesting the "outlaw" of trade, that is your strawman, and it is indeed a weak one. Simply regulating positions that would make it so you could not use your economic dominance as force against a person directly.

So now we are going to throw in some nonsense about the buyer bribing the charity not to help the seller??? There are a lot of charities and charitable people out there. I mean, it's not as if the buyer could hope to bribe everyone and why the hell would he when organs would be quite available in a legal market? Your scenario is getting nuttier by the second. And as I said before, we can use this same "reasoning" to justify government involvement in any transaction.

Nope, I am suggesting that they dry up the funds deliberately in order to save their own lives. And it isn't "nutty" when you consider only a limited number of organs could be transplanted.

Your argument is weak because it denies the very human nature and the very real incentive of survival.

Would there be nobody that ever could or would use that dominance to lever a bit of liver or a kidney?

 

[Timshel]

From the article...

In their letter, the UCLA doctors said patients in situations similar to Nataline's who undergo transplants have a six-month survival rate of about 65 percent.

A 2/3 chance to live 6 months does not sound too promising. Wonder what it is beyond that?

 

[Cypress]

If Dick Cheney needed a liver transplant, rest assured that his government-financed healthcare would have paid for it.

 

[Timshel]

It is possible to use the threat of denial of trade as force. This only works if it is a poor nation indeed.

No, once you accept this silly argument poverty really has little to do with it, but don't want to go into it...

You are. If I was the largest amount of money that went to the charity, I needed your organ, I took that money away to create the need then suggested I would fire your sorry behind if you didn't sell me your organ what choice would you have? It is all "trade"? Every bit of it would be legal, but it would force you into the position that you would 'need' to sell.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. This is nuts dude. It's crazy to make up some fantastic bullshit and then base a position on that. Reality of free markets means few are going to go through this much trouble. Organs would be easily had and there would be no reason for anyone to go through all this.

No, you attempt to assume that unregulated trade would make it impossible to create a situation that could be force. You are living in a fantasy. Monopoly situations could indeed create that very scenario.

Dude, I will put the reality of abundant supplies created by markets against the nonsense you present above, that sound like it should be in a Disney movie, any day.

Nobody is suggesting the "outlaw" of trade, that is your strawman, and it is indeed a weak one. Simply regulating positions that would make it so you could not use your economic dominance as force against a person directly.

Sure we are. Or if not why not? You have not shown how this transaction is distinct from others.

We are discussing the outlaw of trade in organs. You claim it allows some Cruella DeVille to force Tiny Tim in to giving up his kidney. You've also said government should step in to prevent any force not just when it involves organs. So if Cruella uses the same fantastic nonsense to purchase Tiny Tim's marble collection then allowing the sale of marbles enables some to be forced. We should outlaw the sale of marbles.

Nope, I am suggesting that they dry up the funds deliberately in order to save their own lives. And it isn't "nutty" when you consider only a limited number of organs could be transplanted.

It's completely outlandish. Why would only a limited number of organs be transplated?

 

[Timshel]

And as I said, there are lots of charities out there. Is this buyer the major contributor to every single charity in the world? Face it, your scenario is ridiculous Damo.

I am wondering if there is not some other, possibly religious or something, reason for your attempt to rationalize here.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It is possible to use the threat of denial of trade as force.

But it is not FORCE. It is yet another carrot or stick in the historical arsenal of internation negotiating tactics. This is really dishonest and shitminded of you, I gotta say.

 

[Damocles]

No, once you accept this silly argument poverty really has little to do with it, but don't want to go into it...

Rubbish, I speak of force. That any power can be made into force, including that of economic power.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. This is nuts dude. It's crazy to make up some fantastic bullshit and then base a position on that. Reality of free markets means few are going to go through this much trouble. Organs would be easily had and there would be no reason for anyone to go through all this.

Rubbish. You assume that people would freely give their organs just because they could sell them. Again ignoring the very real survivability issue.

Dude, I will put the reality of abundant supplies created by markets against the nonsense you present above, that sound like it should be in a Disney movie, any day.

There is no evidence that the supply would be abundant, in fact the reason for the ban to begin with was because it was not abundant and those with means were doing exactly as I stated, using economic power.

Sure we are. Or if not why not? You have not shown how this transaction is distinct from others.

Except I have. It is distinct because it effects the very health of those 'forced' to give in my scenario.

We are discussing the outlaw of trade in organs. You claim it allows some Cruella DeVille to force Tiny Tim in to giving up his kidney. You've also said government should step in to prevent any force not just when it involves organs. So if Cruella uses the same fantastic nonsense to purchase Tiny Tim's marble collection then allowing the sale of marbles enables some to be forced. We should outlaw the sale of marbles.

We are discussing the regulation of organ transplants so that economic force cannot be applied. Force is force even if it is "benevolent".

It's completely outlandish. Why would only a limited number of organs be transplated?

because only a limited number can. You have to find ones that are consistent and won't be rejected by the recipient. Your ignorance of the medical issues abounds.

 

[uscitizen]

If Dick Cheney needed a liver transplant, rest assured that his government-financed healthcare would have paid for it.

And it would have been promptly donated by a devoted Republican.

 

[Damocles]

And it would have been promptly donated by a devoted Republican.

Probably that friend that apologized to Cheney after he shot him.

 

[Timshel]

Rubbish. You assume that people would freely give their organs just because they could sell them. Again ignoring the very real survivability issue.

Survivability? I don't need my organs when I am dead and most of the sales would take place after that.

There is no evidence that the supply would be abundant, in fact the reason for the ban to begin with was because it was not abundant and those with means were doing exactly as I stated, using economic power.

Give me one example where that happened?

The funny thing is Damo, you ignore the very real black market that now exist in organs due to illegality.

Except I have. It is distinct because it effects the very health of those 'forced' to give in my scenario.

No, you said force was always wrong. So is it okay so long as I don't affect your health or not?

because only a limited number can. You have to find ones that are consistent and won't be rejected by the recipient. Your ignorance of the medical issues abounds.

Yeah, except I work in this field and know quite a bit about it.

The number of organs would increase. Finding appropriate matches would be far easier.

Further, transplant could take place at more opportune times. Right now, when an organ becomes available the recipient often has to be rushed into surgery immediately or the organ goes elsewhere. Often, the recipient is not in the best shape to accept the organ. With a greater supply the transplants would not be such mad dashes and would be far more successful.