It disproportionately benefits the upper middle class that don’t need 50k at all and can just reap the benefits of all the poors sacrificing their kidneys without doing it themselves.
How do you know this? Are you certain? Have you carefully considered both sides? What probability do you think this system would have of helping the lower class as described by their mission statement? What probability would you ascribe to the notion that there is any ethical way to monetarily incentivize kidney donation?
Poor people sell their kidneys and get the money because they’re homeless otherwise, and have a slightly less shitty life for a bit, unless their other kidney has any sort of issue, which is probably made more likely by only having one, in which case the costs of being hospitalized would probably outweigh the benefit of selling it in the first place. Net result is that a lot of poor people would have only one kidney and kidney issues would probably become more rampant overall among poor people.
Upper middle class people can reap the benefits of higher kidney availability, and since they’re economically secure enough to never even consider going through with an invasive surgery for what is likely for them a relatively low amount of money, they never sell. There would be no reason to- The safety net of the extra kidney is worth AT LEAST 50k if not more. Net result for richer people is therefore safety from kidney issues for no cost.
Over time this creates a class disparity where most poor people can’t afford to have more than one kidney and can die very easily from kidney problems, while richer people have consistently healthier kidneys the higher up the chain you go. Maybe kidney health among poor people would technically be higher on average than current day, but it’s still obvious this would be pushed because it benefits more economically entrenched people.
It disproportionately benefits the upper middle class that don’t need 50k at all and can just reap the benefits of all the poors sacrificing their kidneys without doing it themselves.
How do you know this? Are you certain? Have you carefully considered both sides? What probability do you think this system would have of helping the lower class as described by their mission statement? What probability would you ascribe to the notion that there is any ethical way to monetarily incentivize kidney donation?
Poor people sell their kidneys and get the money because they’re homeless otherwise, and have a slightly less shitty life for a bit, unless their other kidney has any sort of issue, which is probably made more likely by only having one, in which case the costs of being hospitalized would probably outweigh the benefit of selling it in the first place. Net result is that a lot of poor people would have only one kidney and kidney issues would probably become more rampant overall among poor people.
Upper middle class people can reap the benefits of higher kidney availability, and since they’re economically secure enough to never even consider going through with an invasive surgery for what is likely for them a relatively low amount of money, they never sell. There would be no reason to- The safety net of the extra kidney is worth AT LEAST 50k if not more. Net result for richer people is therefore safety from kidney issues for no cost.
Over time this creates a class disparity where most poor people can’t afford to have more than one kidney and can die very easily from kidney problems, while richer people have consistently healthier kidneys the higher up the chain you go. Maybe kidney health among poor people would technically be higher on average than current day, but it’s still obvious this would be pushed because it benefits more economically entrenched people.