That's disappointing that it costs that much to keep the kidney (the investment) alive. I don't know why the government only covers three years not more since dialysis costs way more..... Iad Alhallak
It seems clearly economically advantageous to keep people off dialysis, even if it means maintaining their coverage for immunosuppressive drugs. It also clearly wastes a very valuable resource, kidneys, that hundreds of people die from not having each year.
Why pay for the transplant and three years of medicine to keep the kidney running the right function? Why don't they just pay for half of One-Hundred Thousand dollars and continue to pay for the medicine. Or pay way less than the One-Hundred Thousand Dollars say $25,000 or $50,000 for the transplant. I feel like if I was giving the kidney for that money but the recipient was in jeopardy of losing it in a couple years because the government is going to quit funding it, I would rather donate my kidney and the government continue to pay for the medicine and the recipient live than my kidney possibly dying because no one is paying for the medicine. -Miranda Cutchall
I'm with Miranda on this one. We talked a lot in class about who we would donate our kidney to. A lot of us agreed that we would want our kidney to go to someone who could use it for a long time-either someone young or someone who's disease wouldn't immediately destroy the kidney or someone who lived a healthy lifestyle and wouldn't destroy the kidney. Does this mean we wouldn't want people on welfare to get our kidney? I think the government should continue to pay for the drugs and as we saw in the articles, this is most likely cheaper than continued dialysis. -Cara Schwab
This is heartbreaking. As Cara mentioned, in discussions we talked about donating our kidneys to those who were disadvantaged (in ways other than kidney failure), but those who would also live healthy lifestyles to support the donate kidney. However, only the affluent would be able to (are able to...) support the kidney after medicaid runs out--which is so devastating.
That's disappointing that it costs that much to keep the kidney (the investment) alive. I don't know why the government only covers three years not more since dialysis costs way more..... Iad Alhallak
ReplyDeleteIt seems clearly economically advantageous to keep people off dialysis, even if it means maintaining their coverage for immunosuppressive drugs. It also clearly wastes a very valuable resource, kidneys, that hundreds of people die from not having each year.
ReplyDeleteWhy pay for the transplant and three years of medicine to keep the kidney running the right function? Why don't they just pay for half of One-Hundred Thousand dollars and continue to pay for the medicine. Or pay way less than the One-Hundred Thousand Dollars say $25,000 or $50,000 for the transplant. I feel like if I was giving the kidney for that money but the recipient was in jeopardy of losing it in a couple years because the government is going to quit funding it, I would rather donate my kidney and the government continue to pay for the medicine and the recipient live than my kidney possibly dying because no one is paying for the medicine. -Miranda Cutchall
ReplyDeleteI'm with Miranda on this one. We talked a lot in class about who we would donate our kidney to. A lot of us agreed that we would want our kidney to go to someone who could use it for a long time-either someone young or someone who's disease wouldn't immediately destroy the kidney or someone who lived a healthy lifestyle and wouldn't destroy the kidney. Does this mean we wouldn't want people on welfare to get our kidney? I think the government should continue to pay for the drugs and as we saw in the articles, this is most likely cheaper than continued dialysis.
ReplyDelete-Cara Schwab
This is heartbreaking. As Cara mentioned, in discussions we talked about donating our kidneys to those who were disadvantaged (in ways other than kidney failure), but those who would also live healthy lifestyles to support the donate kidney. However, only the affluent would be able to (are able to...) support the kidney after medicaid runs out--which is so devastating.
ReplyDelete