[zaptheimpaler]

Consider a poor or indebted person that owns a car, and needs some benefits from social security. Many republicans would argue (as they do now) that they should "lift themselves by the bootstraps" and sell their car, use public transit instead as a first step to increasing their income right ? Now what do you think will happen when that poor person suddenly has the option to sell their kidney for $50k? The same thing. Their KIDNEY will be considered a "luxury" that they should part with rather than something a little more important than that. Think about the same narrative around "millenials should just stop eating avocado toast" vs. the real problems of wage stagnation or college debt.

What if debt collectors could one day consider a kidney a monetary asset like a house, and force them to give it up? How would you feel, if you sold a kidney at 30, and now you're 70 and your remaining kidney fails?

What if the social security basket shrinks proportionally because 10% of people now opt to sell their kidneys and take less social security- is that REALLY better than letting them keep their damn kidney and paying a bit more taxes on social security? A purely economic perspective would say yes...

Broadly speaking, you are reducing a much bigger problem into a small "economics 101" lens.

[darawk]

Ok. And then what? Where do the problems start?

[zaptheimpaler]

Doesn't seem like you even read my response but if you see no problems in the scenarios I described then i'm not wasting any more words.

[darawk]

No, it doesn't seem like you read anything that i've said thus far. You have not articulated any problems. You have gestured at them. Someone's kidney being removed is not, in and of itself, a problem. Play the scenario all the way through. Where do the problems start? You seem to want to imply that there will be latent health consequences to the people doing this. But even the slightest amount of research would quickly dispel that myth.

So, i'll ask again: What if any, specific, negative consequences will accrue to individuals or society at large as a result of a market in kidneys?

[zaptheimpaler]

Yeah no you didn't read shit. One "latent health problem" I specifically called out is what if your other freaking kidney fails later? Any shred of common sense would tell you that yes, having one of your organs removed IS a problem. And you ignored everything about perverse incentives that it creates. As if you. in your infinite wisdom, can predict every single "specific, negative consequence" caused by those.

[darawk]

> I specifically called out is what if your other freaking kidney fails later?

Yes, that's a problem. However, it does not impact life expectancy for kidney donors. Kidney donors do not have significant health complications.

> Any shred of common sense would tell you that yes, having one of your organs removed IS a problem.

Yes, it does seem that way. Until you read about it, and realize that it isn't.

> And you ignored everything about perverse incentives that it creates. As if you. in your infinite wisdom, can predict every single "specific, negative consequence" caused by those.

"Perverse" incentives are not, in and of themselves, negative consequences. Perverse incentives may cause negative consequences. I am asking you what those consequences are. You enumerated one: kidney failure. A great start. However, it's not something medical practitioners in the area worry particularly much about.