Iz Man wrote:Stopper wrote:
Yes, hearts, kidneys, lungs, blood etc are all in short supply.
I'm curious to know how a private healthcare system is supposed to be able to have a better supply of these things than a public healthcare system...
Its not a question of supply. Obviously the main reason the U.S. does not have the shortage problems the U.K. does is sheer population. We also have a better donor system in the U.S. that allows quicker delivery.
It is not a question of supply?!?! The U.S. certainly has a
younger population than the U.K. This probably
does have a significant effect on the supply and demand for organs - nothing to do with public/private organisation (and not country size, either!)
Also, speed of delivery is not a problem that is greatly affected by whether you have private/public organisation, since for many organs, the length of time they can be kept is measured in the hours. Most organ waiting lists are there because you're waiting for people to
die!
I only brought this up because it was meant to be a
joke. I'd have thought it was blindingly obvious that there are a few much more important factors concerning transplants than whether you have a state system or not, so it was basically a very bad example on your part to pick in the first place!
And the subtext of my question was, how would a private healthcare system increase the supply of organs (which does matter!!!)? Offing people in the bloody street?!
Jeez!
