Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
This is a terrible plan. "Breaking up monopolies" = privatizing the organ coordimation and distribution systems. It will politicize the procurement process, and award the contracts to distribute kidneys to the highest ~~bribe~~ donor.
The current aystem is flawed, but the solution is not de-regulated capitalism. This will be a long term disaster.
I don't see how this change represents de-regulated capitalism any more or less than the status quo. Currently there is a single nonprofit corporation that has been the sole recipient of the primary government contact for over 40 years. Just because they are a nonprofit corporation doesn't mean they can't have many of the conflict of interest issues that for profit corporations have. Indeed, it sounds like there is evidence of that as there is overlap between the UNOS board of directors and their oversight board.
The change doesn't impact the fact that the government is contacting out for services. What it does is allow the government to contact out more ala carte since it seems the current organization has allowed aspects of the service to languish.
I would be worried if the government was moving responsibilities from a government agency to an outside bidder, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
What it does is increase the spending limits and allows for wider discretion in doling out the contracts. But that's it. That's the bill. It does not modernize the database, it does not address racial disparities in organ distribution, it does not improve transparency or provide access to collected data or save lives or increase awareness outreach. Those are all the victories that the authors and supporters of the bill are claiming. Their dancing around the ring with their arms raised, like they fixed the OPTN and defeated the evil UNOS Monopoly.
UNOS supports the bill, and will probably get more contracts out of it.
This bill does not solve problems. It creates opportunities.
I don't see how you addressed my point that the change doesn't in and of itself represent deregulation. Surely opening the process up to more bidders and allowing the government to more directly prioritize initiatives isn't deregulation.
Setting that aside, I only have a cursory knowledge of the background from some NYT articles I read in the spring. Those articles mentioned the concerns you give around inequality and outdated technology and systems. My understanding is that one of the first planned contracts to go to bid is to modernize the technology systems, which seems to at least be a start at addressing known deficiencies. Additionally, more targeted contracts allow the government to review for more specific goals and outcomes rather than a monolithic overarching agreement.
It's easy to list all the negative things that could happen with the process. But like you say, this bill itself doesn't solve the problems, it creates opportunities. I see opportunities to fix the problems. Your are welcome to focus on the negative and assume this is just a financial play. Both of us are predicting the future and time will tell.
From how the bill reads, the system is already privatized and has been run by one single non-profit for the past 40 or so years. Now it can be operated by more than one organization, but I can't immediately find information on if the the non-profit organization requirement has been changed or not.
UNOS has issues, but the organization is not the cause of most of them. The lack of competition is not the source of their problems. They need a modernized infrastructure, and there should be more transparency in the policy decisions. We should expand access to transplants and improve healthcare across the board.
This bill claims to fix all of those things, but doesn't. It merely removes the guardrails in contract allocation and amounts. It won't be immediate, but give it ten years, and the system will be ridiculously corrupt, incompetent, and entirely partisan.
Like everything else the government does,
Orgasm donation needs to be opt-out, not opt-in.
Orgasm donation
How do I sign up?
I'm leaving this typo. Same applies to both.
They ask at the dmv if you get a license/ID. Idk besides that.
“will break up the current monopoly system harnessing competition"
That's really all you need to read.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden is set to sign into law a new bill that the White House says will save lives for Americans in need of an organ transplant.
Now with the president’s signature, we are taking significant steps to improve it,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday.
The law, Jean-Pierre said, “will break up the current monopoly system harnessing competition to allow HHS (the Department of Health and Human Services) to contract with the best entities to provide a more efficient system for the people it serves.”
A report released last year by the Senate Finance Committee found 70 deaths from 2010 to 2020 due to system failures within OPTN, as well as significant opportunities for improvement in how the nation manages organ transplants.
“From the top down, the U.S. transplant network is not working, putting Americans’ lives at risk,” the report said.
Part of Biden’s 2024 budget proposal sought increased funding for organ procurement and transplantation – a total of $67 million – and requests that Congress update decades-old rules around appropriations and contracts for organ transplants in order to increase competition.
The original article contains 334 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 45%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!