jsomae

Yo, cool your jets. I think we're talking past each other. The system in question isn't going to give any money to homeless people even if they donate their kidney. That's what I mean by non-exploitative.

Thst's cool! I didn't know that.

But the system is designed to avoid the scenario of poor and desperate people selling their kidneys.

As pointed out in the article, that would definitely help but wouldn't be sufficient.

Again, the proposed system would be non-exploitative. It would not incentivize the poor and desperate to donate.

Improving the American diet is another thing that would help this problem a lot, but I doubt it would be sufficient.

This is aggravating. It's a carefully considered plan designed to avoid the ghoulish scenario of "poor people selling their kidneys," evidently designed by someone smarter than either of us.

"Ghoulish" is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?

The proposed method to incentivize kidney donations seems well thought-out and non-coercive. It is structured in a way that makes it impossible or at least very difficult to sell a kidney as a way to "get rich quick" (get out of debt quick). Because it's awarded as tax credits, impoverished people would have little incentive to sell.

Meanwhile, the kidneys will go disproportionately to the poor and to the disadvantaged, since rich and advantaged people apparently have much less trouble finding volunteer donors.

There is a huge need for kidneys. Kidney failure causes great suffering. Having a second kidney isn't very useful. Why not cautiously incentivize donation?

Edit: I think people aren't realizing these are tax credits. Impoverished people who can't afford necessities won't be able to get any money from this.

Edit (2): Okay so apparently these are refundable tax credits, which rather skews things. But there are apparently a number of other safeguards the proposal would put in place to prevent ghoulish kidney harvesting. I think this proposal should really be taken seriously and considered carefully rather than dismissing it outright as "ghoulish" because it has the potential to save a lot of lives, especially low-income and disadvantaged lives.

Here's an excellent blog post by a kidney donor about the great difficulty involved in donating. There are a lot of barriers making it unnecessarily hard to donate.

Your two column approach, while more descriptive, somehow seems to lack explanatory power to me. I don't think it would clear up confusion in most cases (but that's just my intuition). I wrote the text that's implied, which your explanation doesn't have.

I suppose I didn't explain what the implied image is, but the meme format is well known at this point -- basically anyone can infer the missing images, which are generally the same from meme to meme, but the missing text is the hard part to infer.

Anyway, cheers. I think my pedantry ends here.

That's amazing and I'm thrilled to hear that Abby found love.

granted, but the source material says "with text," not "with text and image," even though it's technically the latter, so I pattern-matched as best I could.