|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
For-profit blood donation seems okay. I do hope we don't see Congressional Republicans deciding to turn their "free market fixes all" views to organ donation, though, because there at least there are case studies that show just how nasty it ends up if done imperfectly (see: Iran).
Luckily, people in Congress generally don't seem to actually know anything about healthcare that isn't spoon-fed to them by insurance companies, and I don't think insurance companies will be aiming for for-profit organs any time soon.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
Considering his history with Trump and the circus of the first press conference, how likely do you think is Infowars getting a WH press pass? That Jones guy scares me.
|
On January 16 2017 00:10 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2017 20:28 Acrofales wrote:On January 15 2017 16:05 IgnE wrote:On January 14 2017 04:12 farvacola wrote:Expect these numbers to rise even more during the next four years. Every day in cities across the country, tens of thousands of people wait in line to have a needle put in their arms for up to two hours.
Instead of donating their blood plasma, these people receive payments for the time it takes to give their plasma -- the clear, straw-colored liquid part of the blood that contains special proteins -- to for-profit companies. The companies purify the plasma, turning it into life-saving drugs for immune disorders and other drugs, including those used in cancer and transplant patients.
“I donate specifically for the money because I work a minimum wage job. I work as a cashier and a stocker. I used to work as a repair technician for 14 bucks an hour, so I’m used to more than what I’m getting,” David, who donates his plasma, said.
In the U.S., most people technically donate their plasma but are paid for their time doing that.
The U.S. supplies 94 percent of the paid plasma used around the world. And nearly 80 percent of the plasma centers in the U.S. are located in America’s poorer neighborhoods.
Many of the people who frequent these centers to give their plasma are full-time workers and low-income Americans who are just unable to make ends meet.
William, who has two children and works at a Burger King in Kansas City, Missouri, says he gives his blood plasma twice a week.
“I go Fridays and Sundays. Right arm I use Friday. Other I use Sunday. I switch up every time,” William said. “It’s a 21-gauge needle, so it’s pretty thick.”
The payment they receive averages about $30 to $40, and for the companies, it is a $19.7 billion global industry.
Many foreign companies come to the U.S. to get the plasma for certain drugs instead of where they are headquartered because the laws in the U.S. are favorable for plasma donations.
“For a majority of people -- apparently -- it’s relatively safe. We really don’t know what the long-term effects because it’s a relatively new phenomenon," Dr. Roger Kobayashi, a clinical professor of immunology at UCLA, said.
According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, the frequency and volume parameters for plasma donation are approved by the FDA and have been in use for approximately fifty years.
"These regulations and guidelines are based on the best available science and are in place to protect the health of plasma donors. In just the past decade, the industry has collected more than 235,000,000 source plasma donations from dedicated donors that have treated hundreds of thousands of patients all over the world," the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) said in a statement to ABC News. "Source plasma donation is safe and is highly regulated. Donors must meet criteria defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and voluntary industry standards. Healthy, committed donors are the foundation of plasma-derived therapies."
Kobayashi said what was once “a simple gift of life has now evolved into a multi-national, highly profitable corporate enterprise.” Why Thousands of Low-Income Americans 'Donate' Their Blood Plasma to For-Profit Centers It's the rational thing to do farv. It's worth a million dollars over a lifetime for a couple hours a week. On October 28 2016 06:10 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 05:56 IgnE wrote:On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:
Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. We've done this dance before and I'm sure we'll do it again before you learn to use Excel but basically right now I make an unremarkable income (still a while from finishing my CPA) but I still save far more than 5k/year and certainly wouldn't reduce my savings as a percentage of total income over time. You start with the assumption that it can't be done, set conditions that mean it won't be done and then conclude that you're right. The only problem being people like myself who are defying all your ironclad assumptions. Hell, something as simple as donating blood plasma ($20/hr 4 hours a week) and throwing it in savings is worth half a mil over a working life. You are the textbook example of the crab bucket mentality. You refuse to take responsibility for improving your own life and so you must try to undermine anyone who disproves your own delusions of helplessness. I think farvacola wasn't objecting to them doing it, but rather the fucked up circumstances that leads to people doing that. Plenty of room for a discussion on the ethics of blood plasma trade. We should prohibit people from selling their blood. That way, we will protect donors from those evil companies cohersing them into making money, they should only be able to donate if they don't get anything out of it, because profit is evil; more important, we will make sure treatment for cancer and autoinmune pacients becomes even more expensive and/or simply unaccecible, weeding out the weaklings. Protecting people from themselves is always a lousy argument to make laws. See: War on drugs.
Fantastic to see that you grasp all the subtlelties of the problem and have a firm grasp on the dilemna and what's at stake.
By the way, if the states didn't "protect people from themselves", dozens of millions more would die from cigarettes (decades of extremely heavy taxation and regulation have done miracles), alcoholism would be as much of a problem as it used to be (same causes, same effects), thousand more would die on the road because the seat belt and helmet for motorbike wouldn't be compulsory, etc etc.
Except for Ayn Rand and her degenerate ideology, I think everyone agrees that more often than not, the role of the state is to "protect people from themselves".
The war on drugs is not meant to protect anyone, for it's proven that legalization coupled with control and strict regulations is the best approach on the problem. You don't protect people by putting them in jail by millions.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 02:09 mustaju wrote:
Considering his history with Trump and the circus of the first press conference, how likely do you think is Infowars getting a WH press pass? That Jones guy scares me.
I wouldn't say it's unlikely.
|
John Lewis picking a fight with Trump on MLK weekend seems to be working well. Personally I thought he'd be too busy to be blasting people on twitter, but shows what I know.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something?
|
On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something?
depends which people attack him.
I'm sure for some politicians their base is pleased that they're fighting trump. attacking an unpopular enemy makes you popular.
for some others, it's simply an easy way to get views/attention/revenue.
otherwise I'd have to look at the attack to figure out why.
|
On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something?
Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition?
If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him.
And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
|
Worked great for the Republicans, did nothing constructive for eight years and now control every branch of government. I suggest Dems start with questioning Trump's birth certificate.
|
On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
He doesn't need his opposition to get things done. What bargaining chip do they have when he controls the house and senate? And possibly the Supreme Court?
|
On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
In general I'd agree with Biff, but in this case I have to agree with LegalLord...
I don't think many people are really on the border about if they like Trump or not, so unless some major dirt is found, continuing the smear campaign isn't likely to drive more people away from him, and it will likely drive his supporters even further to his side.
|
On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
what actual harm does it do to their goals?
and what does it do to their reelection chances?
I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons.
if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so.
chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots.
You can't imagine scenarios where congress would impeach him? Especially if it becomes politically convenient after a major gaffe? People hate him to an unprecedented degree, and some of his election supporters will definitely join the hate train.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 02:59 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. You can't imagine scenarios where congress would impeach him? Especially if it becomes politically convenient after a major gaffe? People hate him to an unprecedented degree, and some of his election supporters will definitely join the hate train.
Impeachment isn't done lightly. I do not expect Trump to be removed from office before the end of his term.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. what actual harm does it do to their goals? and what does it do to their reelection chances? I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons. if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so. chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances.
They weren't elected to pick fights. They were elected to pass laws.
Guess how much the president hating you does for that goal?
|
On January 16 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. what actual harm does it do to their goals? and what does it do to their reelection chances? I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons. if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so. chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances. They weren't elected to pick fights. They were elected to pass laws. Guess how much the president hating you does for that goal?
I find your statement odd.
while i'm sure we'd all like it if they focused on passing laws, we both know that's not how it works and not what they actually do.
Their goal is to get reelected, and maybe to advance their agendas and pass some laws, and represent their constituents.
The system is certainly not setup to encourage thoughtful intelligent law-passing.
and some people pretty clearly are elected to pick fights in part.
the politicians do what gets them reelected, and sometimes, picking fights does that. that's what people vote for.
|
On January 16 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. what actual harm does it do to their goals? and what does it do to their reelection chances? I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons. if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so. chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances. They weren't elected to pick fights. They were elected to pass laws. Guess how much the president hating you does for that goal?
He isn't even in office yet. They don't get anything out of being nice right now. If you think hating him hurts you you stay quiet, if you think it helps you you hate on him.
We'll have to see what happens in 2 weeks or so imo
|
On January 16 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. what actual harm does it do to their goals? and what does it do to their reelection chances? I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons. if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so. chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances. They weren't elected to pick fights. They were elected to pass laws. Guess how much the president hating you does for that goal?
They were elected to represent their constituents.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 16 2017 03:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:On January 16 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 16 2017 02:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote:
I do wonder what people hope to gain from keeping up random attacks on Trump. Will that make him not be president or something? Isn't the gain of exposing a president and possibly make him deeply unpopular obvious when you are in the opposition? If you want to get nothing done, maybe. He's not going anywhere for at least four years and his challengers would do well to acknowledge that, even if they don't like him. And he's already deeply unpopular. That isn't changing with more people getting into spats that make both sides look like idiots. what actual harm does it do to their goals? and what does it do to their reelection chances? I'm not saying it's strategically optimal necessarily, I'm just pondering reasons. if the base that elects you likes you getting into fights with the opposition, then they'll reeelect you for doing it, so it makes sense to do so. chewb -> likewise, it's not about hurting trump, i'ts about getting more support from your base by attacking an unpopular enemy. thus improving a politician's own reelection chances. They weren't elected to pick fights. They were elected to pass laws. Guess how much the president hating you does for that goal? They were elected to represent their constituents.
Well I would hope said constituents expect more of them than just to complain about how bad Trump is.
Did they run on a platform of "if elected, I will spend every day complaining about how bad the president is and I will get into piss fights with him" or one that talked about what laws they wanted to pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
