No doubt they do, in fact one of the best correlates with good health indicators, health outcomes and access to services is income and/or SES, even here in the great white north and our 'socialized' health care system.
The objections to selling organs relate to concerns about the nature of the donor/recipient relationship. Personally I think the surgeon who performed that transplant on the rich guy with an employee donor was an immoral fuck who should lose his license. There is no way that donation was made without some degree of coercion, or expectation of return. Similarly if you create a (legal) market for organs in no time flat you will have undesirable and immoral behavior at the margins; the only people selling will be people for whom $12,000, or whatever is a vast sum of money, who will have no way of raising that kind of coin again and will be left just as badly off after they blow that wad. Organ buyers or their proxies will coerce sellers, health care is not a normal market good, there is no way a market within it will work.
Have a look at the blood and sperm donor businesses and who donates, there's your for profit organ bank.
Rich people can kill people too, they're called workplace accidents, pollution and defective products. That doesn't mean we need to condone and encourage that behavior.
>Fuck'em. Make them pay for the kidney but designate that a
>specific percentage of organs be given to people whose incomes are below a
>specific amount. This may not be the ideal way but it sucks a whole lot
>less than thew current one.
It's only a symptom of a deeper problem in the American health care system, as long as you have a fractionated market with for profit providers your system is terminally screwed up.
PC
>John Thornton
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo