[sp332]

They buy the blood from blood banks, so people donating blood don't know it's going to paranoid rich people instead of sick people, and they don't get any of the money!

Edit: I thought it was illegal in the USA to pay for body parts, but there is an exception for plasma (and maybe the rest of the blood?). But it's already predatory http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/business/06plasma.html and this new business only makes it look worse.

[tyingq]

"His start-up, Ambrosia, is charging about $8,000 a pop for blood transfusions"

And a quick google search says that people donating to a blood bank get $20 to $60 a pint, and the blood banks sell for $200-$600 a pint.

I wonder if blood banks will figure out the model here and sell direct.

[maxerickson]

Blood banks in the US tend not to pay for whole blood.

Plasma donations are often paid though.

[tyingq]

Hmm. Apparently to discourage people with diseases from selling their blood. The plasma doesn't have the issue due to how it is processed, broken down, and used.

As mentioned, though, this creates an odd situation. The donor is sort of misled that they are doing something charitable, which is clearly not the case here.

[maxerickson]

Blood banks do have plenty of real costs and a payment to the donator would just get passed through to the patients receiving the blood.

It looks like I donate to a for profit organization, but for instance, the Red Cross isn't paying shareholders profits from the blood they sell.

[Overtonwindow]

Paying for blood, and the ethical issues around that, reminds me of pharmacies giving out gift cards and other discounts for flu shots. I recall CVS was giving out a $25 gift card to anyone who got a flu shot, and I imagined a lot of low income and poor people lining up for a shot they may not need, and in fact may be harmful, just to get money to buy food, etc.

[jack9]

> I imagined a lot of low income and poor people lining up for a shot they may not need, and in fact may be harmful

That's an interesting spin, which may be true of other types of injection. However for flu shots, it can save lives (the poor are particularly susceptible and potentially focal for infection clusters). In that way the financial incentive is progressive.

[Overtonwindow]

Blood banks don't usually pay for blood. That's why it's called donating... If someone is paying for blood where do I sign up because I could use the money.. :-/

[tyingq]

Elsewhere in the thread, but the nuance is what it is used for. You can get paid if it ends up as plasma.

[crowbahr]

I had friends who sold plasma to get through college. Like 50-100 each time they went.

[savanaly]

There's a concept in economics whereby the gains from trade tend to accumulate to the owners of "fixed resources" in a system. In this case that would be the people selling the blood. So I would expect that in the long run the market would stabilize with people selling their blood getting paid the full worth of their blood (decreased by transaction costs of all the middlemen involved in getting the blood to other people, of course).

The reasoning is that if a blood bank is trying to grab a bigger slice of the pie than just its operating costs, a second blood bank can open and compete with the first one on price, and the only equilibrium is to have blood banks charging exactly at cost and no more.

Since you say that the business is predatory on the blood donors, do you think it's just that the market hasn't had time to settle, or that there's some funny business in this market maybe?

[joe_the_user]

I think the problem of the sale of blood isn't people not getting paid fairly for their blood in the purely economic sense. There's no reason to think that the "full worth" of blood is that high since producing blood is pretty common "skill".

The problem is abetting those desperate to sell their blood and body parts are going to be abetting the downward spiral such people tend to be on. The most blood donors are homeless and drug addicts. Donating blood doesn't make someone more able to find a job, housing etc because it's a literal drain on their vitality.

[savanaly]

That is a good point and I am somewhat concerned about that. If the decision were put to me I would personally have to think long and hard about whether it's actually good for society to let people sell their body parts. But it's still helpful to have a clear economic picture of what is going to be affecting the market price of these things and that's fun to think about so I try to focus on that.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

But do we want to allow rich vampires to drive the price of blood up? It seems to me that maybe blood shouldn't be treated like a commodity which is driven by the market. Most people receiving blood are not exactly in a position to turn it down or shop around and so some technologists driving the price up to $8,000 is going to hurt you.

[savanaly]

To the extent it's a competitive market (and it seems like it would be-- a lot of potential buyers and sellers), the price should be determined by the minimum average cost, not by the willingness/ability of the buyer to pay. This outcome is not dependent on the ability of the buyer to walk away (as you note, their life might depend on it so some of them can't), but on the sellers pursuing their self interest which we can probably count on them to do.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

It may turn out to be a competitive market, I just don't think it should be. In a truly competitive market Peter Thiel could just outbid a sick person for a particularly choice pint. In this market system whether a person gets blood or not will depend on their ability to pay for it not their need of it.

[ada1981]

Right, I'd be curious what the deal is here. Are they buying blood or plasma? Are the donors compensated? Or do they think they are helping burn victims and end up helping Covfefe supporters?

I've long that people should be allowed to profit from selling their bodies /organs to medicine (especially after they die -- ie selling options), but it seems that only others can profit from your donation for the most part.

[sp332]

"So high-schoolers donating their blood are not aware that it might be used on healthy adults." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/blood-transfusions-from-teena... Really it's the lack of transparency and the payment imbalance that concern me.

[desdiv]

How is this not charity fraud?

If I donate to earthquake victims, I expect at least a portion of my donation to end up in the hands of earthquake victims.

If I donate whole blood to help those with medical needs, then I expect at least a portion of my donation to end up in the bloodsteam of someone with a genuine medical need.

The US has outlawed paid whole blood donations, so EVERY whole blood donation in the US is an act of charity.

[maxerickson]

It's unlikely the blood banks involved have made any misrepresentations.

It'd be interesting to see what Ambrosia told the blood banks though.

[gregatragenet3]

All of the 'science' links reference studies on plasma - and their website even. https://www.ambrosiaplasma.com/ . So they are using plasma, which it's legal for a person/donor to sell.

Is there any way to find out what blood-banks, and if it's disclosed to the donors that this is where the blood is going? I'd donate to a donor awareness campaign for these blood banks.. If they are not disclosing, I suspect their donations would take a hit if people found out their donation might not go to burn victims or cancer patients, and instead go to modern day Ian McCandless's.

[yincrash]

For clarity, it appears to be plasma and not whole blood: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/young-blood-antiaging...

[chiefalchemist]

One of the NPR shows also did a show on the blood biz. In short, if you give blood, someone is making a buck off that donation.

[zzzzzzzza]

maybe the blood banks need money to run their operations more than they need blood...

[bad_user]

Then they should ask for money instead of blood.

[zzzzzzzza]

maybe people are more willing to donate blood than money