Caffeinated Thoughts |
- Time for a Regulated Market on Living Kidney Donation.
- Pro-Abortion Activist Arrested, Jailed by FBI for Threats Against Pro-lifers
- Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s Advocacy for Boeing Contract That Will Help Foster Iowa Job Growth
- A Wink and a Nod from Branstad on Selection of Iowa Supreme Court Justices
- Iowa Collective Bargaining Bill–HSB 117 Passes Out of Labor Committee
| Time for a Regulated Market on Living Kidney Donation. Posted: 25 Feb 2011 08:42 PM PST Yesterday the Washington Post reported that under kidney transplant proposal, younger patients would get the best organs. Several conservative talk show hosts and blogs were quick to jump on the article as an indication of a new system of rationing under ObamaCare. Organs being prioritized to young healthy patients over older sicker patients was an indication that the death panels were on their way. Like it or not, our current system requires rationing. Today there are 93,637 people waiting for a kidney alone. Only about 15,000 organs become available each year for transplant. Each year around 4,500 patients die waiting for an organ. And this really only scratches the surface, because it does not include all those who need a kidney, because theirs have failed, but are not listed because they have no chance of obtaining an organ with supplies so low. Over 500,000 people are currently on dialysis in America today, and last year nearly 90,000 of them died. That is the true cost of the organ shortage. When we are talking about such massive loss of life, it seems ridiculous to talk about the financial cost, but with a country running on defecit spending, we are forced to ration our dollars as well. Dialysis costs $35 Billion dollars a year, most of which is paid by medicare and medicaid. Studies have shown that the best case scenario for a successful transplant is one that takes place early, before the recipient starts dialysis, and one that is from a living not dead donor. Studies have shown that even if every potential decease donor who dies in a way that allows donation ends up donating, it is not enough to meet demand. So to summarize our current system of organ donation:
Is there a solution? Yes there is. A regulated market on Living Kidney Donation. I know what your thinking, it just seems wrong, it is icky, makes you a bit queezy. The question is, does it make you more queezy than the current system, where people are stuck connected to machines, slowly dying, hoping to hold on long enough to get a coveted kidney before their bodies have deteriorated to the point where the kidney is useless. There are many objections that have been raise by such a system, but I assure you, each objection can be dispelled. Many objections are to the black market that is present in many third world countries, such as donors not receiving proper care and rich recipients taking advantage of poor donors. Yes, those are problems with the black market status quo, which could be prevented by a safeguards in a regulated market in a first world medical system. Another objection is that offering compensation will incite people into taking undo risk that they would not normally take. A very good study done by the University of Pennsylvania has dispelled this concern. Others say the risk is too high to allow such a thing. But the risk is actually very low, about the same as having your appendix removed. It is so low we allow this type of donation already between family members. But it is true that there is some risk, and when someone does something that is risky, especially when that act saves a life, we tend to compensate them. Soldiers, police officers, firefighters all face a certain amount of risk while serving to save lives…and they are compensated. When a living donation does take place, the hospital gets paid, as does the surgeon, the nurses, the custodians, the recipient gets new life, everyone is compensated, except the donor, the person who has the most to lose. Selling body parts is morbid. But we already allow it in other situations. Surrogate motherhood is essentially renting out the womb and poses its own risks as well. Selling eggs remains legal. Although the days of paying people for donating blood is over, people still receive compensation in many places for donating blood products such as plasma and platelets. Another concern is donors developing kidney disease in their remaining kidney. Kidney disease developing in former donors is actually less than in the general public, likely because they are overall healthier if they have made it through the screening to be a donor. If they still had both kidenys, they would likely still be in the same position, since a majority of the causes of kidney failure affects both kidneys equally, it doesn’t matter if you have one or two at that point (exceptions would be trauma or rare tumors). Also, if you are unluckily enough to need a kidney after donating most proposals include placing former donors at the head of the line. Also remember under this system there is no waiting list, there is an ample supply, there are people waiting to give you a kidney. The government could compensate donors up to $100,000 and still save money. It is unlikely to require that amount to bring forward enough donors to completely wipe out the wait list, meaning the savings could be very substantial, while saving lives. I’m sure there are other objections that can be brought up, but I am confident that each can be solved and such a system could be a huge success, saving billions of dollars and more importantly hundreds of thousands of lives. I think it is time for a regulated market on living kidney donation. Share and Enjoy:                 |
| Pro-Abortion Activist Arrested, Jailed by FBI for Threats Against Pro-lifers Posted: 25 Feb 2011 12:00 PM PST NEW YORK, NY (Christian Newswire) — The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested abortion supporter Theodore Shulman, 49, yesterday and charged him with communicating interstate threats against two pro-life activists. He is currently being held without bond at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, a Federal holding facility. While the complaint against Shulman was filed under seal, Operation Rescue has been informed that the case involved two pro-life activists who are simply referred to as Victim 1 and Victim 2. Operation Rescue is withholding the identities of the victims in order to protect their safety. In addition to the two victims listed in the Federal complaint, Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger, as well as blogger Jill Stanek and speaker/activist Bryan Kemper of Stand True have also been the brunt of Shulman’s threats. Shulman hounded Sullenger, in particular, over a two year time-span. He ran a blog site under the name "Operation Counterstrike" that fomented hatred and attempted to encourage "pro-choice" supporters to murder pro-life activists. Shulman is also the object of a Federal investigation in Wichita, Kansas, which could result in additional charges being filed against Shulman for making serious death threats against Operation Rescue staff members. "This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," said Sullenger. "He often posted threatening comments to our web site and called me on my cell phone too many times to count. He was always brazen in his threats and openly identified himself, telling us not to bother calling the FBI because they would never do anything for us. Thankfully, he was wrong about that, and we hope that, in addition to his New York charges, he will also be charged in Kansas." We continue to work with the FBI on the Shulman case and on other cases of death threats we have received. We take every threat seriously and have taken extra security precautions to insure our safety. Threats to Operation Rescue have increased in recent weeks after MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow repeatedly targeted the group by airing inaccurate and inflammatory information that has incited the threats against Operation Rescue staff members’ lives. Listen to recordings of a threat made by Theodore Shulman. |
| Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s Advocacy for Boeing Contract That Will Help Foster Iowa Job Growth Posted: 25 Feb 2011 10:00 AM PST Iowa Governor Terry Branstad released the letter that he sent to U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in support of the $30 Billion contract that they received from the Department of Defense for 179 refueling planes for the Air Force.
Branstad Letter to Robert Gates Branstad’s communications director, Tim Albrecht told me last night this contract would bring an estimated 800 new jobs to Iowa along with an approximate annual economic impact of $40 M for the state. He also noted that Boeing already has 57 vendors/suppliers in the state of Iowa. Share and Enjoy: |
| A Wink and a Nod from Branstad on Selection of Iowa Supreme Court Justices Posted: 25 Feb 2011 08:15 AM PST
On Wednesday, Governor Branstad appointed Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Ed Mansfield, trial judge Bruce Zager, and Davenport attorney Thomas Waterman to the Iowa Supreme Court. Showing little regard for his past promises to Iowans, Branstad has made no effort to assure the public that his appointees will exercise judicial restraint. Branstad had previously stated that he will only appoint candidates who respected the voters' rejection of Varnum v. Brien. Branstad had also recently pledged that: "I feel an important obligation and responsibility as the chief executive of the state and the person who does make the appointments, to try and choose the very best people – people who I think share the philosophy of judicial restraint that I think most Iowans believe the courts should exercise." While he hesitated at making his interviews of the candidates publicly available, Branstad had indicated that he would consider posting non-confidential portions of the interviews online. While certainly less than what the State Judicial Nominating Commission provided, it would have given Iowans the ability to assess the answers given by each of the nine nominees. Instead, in making his appointments, Branstad simply stated: "It is the role of the judiciary in the state of Iowa to say what the law is, as applied to cases before the courts, rather than saying what the law should be. The separation of powers is central to our Iowa Constitution." Branstad, however, made no effort to assure Iowans that his appointees agree with his judicial philosophy. To the contrary, each of his appointees have made troubling statements in their application material and/or interviews before the Commission, statements that the Governor has failed to indicate are not reflective of his appointees' judicial philosophy. For instance, perhaps echoing President Obama's call for judicial empathy, Judge Mansfield wrote in his application material: "Appellate judges should have enough real-world experience to understand the effects of their decisions on people's lives. There is more to justice than legal elegance…I would be honored to receive the opportunity to apply my judicial and other experience as a Justice of our Supreme Court." (emphasis added) Joining the chorus, Judge Zager wrote in his application that: "I consider myself a progressive thinker…I also have a deep appreciation of the real-world implications of an appellate decision…Most importantly, I also realize that both as a trial judge and as an appellate judge, we are dealing with people's lives." In his commission interview, Zager agreed that empathy is a good quality in an appellate judge. He continued: "A lot of it is a gut reaction…I have a good feel for people…It's all about life experiences." For his part, Waterman wrote in his application that the law cannot remain static, failing to explain who determines how the law should change. During his commission interview, Waterman voiced displeasure at the outcome of the retention vote, calling it a shock to the judicial branch. Given the highly liberal makeup of the Commission, it may well be that none of the nine nominees could have assured the Governor that they would exercise any sort of judicial restraint on the bench. But if that were the case, Branstad should have used this opportunity to educate the people on the need to change the process. Instead, with a wink and a nod, the Governor apparently wants us to believe that he has found the judicial philosophy of each of his appointees acceptable. Rather than claiming that the Commission tied his hands and that his picks are the best of the worst, Branstad now, for better or for worse, owns these three new justices. Branstad has failed to exercise any type of leadership, much less conviction, on this issue, leaving the impression that his prior promises to Iowans were simply an attempt to pander to conservatives. Conservatives don't want campaign promises, they want action, and the Governor has failed to deliver. Nathan Tucker is an attorney from Davenport, and executive director of Iowa Judicial Watch. Share and Enjoy: |
| Iowa Collective Bargaining Bill–HSB 117 Passes Out of Labor Committee Posted: 25 Feb 2011 07:15 AM PST House Study Bill 117, sponsored by State Representative Lance Horbach (R-Tama), passed out of the Iowa House Labor Committee early this morning on a party line vote. Democrats forced an all-nighter adding 50 amendments all of which were voted. This bill would limit collective bargaining for Iowa's public employees over health insurance and layoff procedures. The bill will go to the full House next week. Then once it passes the House expect it to die in the Iowa Senate since Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) is unlikely to allow it to come to a vote. What a surprise. Share and Enjoy: |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu