That we should pay people to donate blood

I will address my opponent's arguments in order. He begins by arguing that I would not net a 100% rate because of people with AIDs and other maladies. This is true, I specified that the compulsory aspect would be conducted via the Red Cross. People with risky medical conditions or non-viable blood would therefor abstain. Protecting Autonomy:I'm afraid I don't need sources to contend with this argument. I'll point out that health insurance is required within the United States and many parts of the world, which already means the government enforces a lack of autonomy. Secondarily, within in the United States, immunizations are required within the school systems. Sex Ed is often part of a required curriculum, as well as PE, which are both infringements on health autonomy. To participate in any type of sports and many extra curriculars physicals are required. These are all instances of health autonomy being deprived which is an indication that the harms of losing autonomy are already existant within the status quo. Additionally, I just don't care about my opponent's autonomy arguments. You should consider that we're talking about the capacity to save the lives of the thousands of people that you dileneate in the original case. Compared to that, a further lack of autonomy, which already happens is a small price to play. Additionally, autonomy arguments are not possible to quantify, which means the lives of people will always be more important. People can always come back from losing some autonomy, but they can never return from death. This argument comes down to "insult to personhood" vs. peoples' lives. The choice should be obvious. Further on this point my opponent attempts to argue that no compulsory donations mean more blood is donated. This is patently false, as his original case articulates that we already have a blood shortage. The fact that we successfully immunize (see: erradication of polio and smallpox in U.S. and the world respectively), enforce health insurance purchaces, and moderate the health curriculum are all indications that enforcement of health is solvent within the United States. My opponent first cites a situation where police officers were fleeing because of fear of dirty needles when blood was needed a Ugandan hospital. He then cites a case in Shanghai where blood donations have gone down because the city enforces some compulsory blood donation schemes within Universties and select industries. Neither of these are a reflection of my case. First, the red cross enforces asceptic techniques and they don't allow reuse of needles. Secondarily, in the case of Shanghai, donations were likely to go down, because people view it as less necessary in a world where some compulsory element is present. In my case all people would be forced to donate (barring those with the medical conditions mentioned by the red cross) and so this would never be an issue. The source 11, cites the Shanghai instance again and points out that some people were unwilling to donate blood. However this is a faulty comparison as the article compares a partial compulsory system to a full volunteer system. Even in the later case the article articulates that not enough blood is procurred for Shanghai. My case envisions the differences between a full compulsory system and not. I have a ton of predictive arguments above about why this would work. Finally, larz states that compulsory schemes end more lives than they save. Yes, this might be true in places like Uganda, where people literally run away for fear of contracting AIDS. In the United States, where red cross reccomendations are followed, this is not a factor. My opponent will find no evidence indicating that a compulsory scheme would end more lives then save, in contemporary society. SecurityI previously articulated that a scheme such as this in the United States would require blood donations from a single individual less than once every 10 years. This is an indication that the frequency of the ordinance is not a concern. Additionally, I've already supplied numerous cases in which health concerns are mandated which indicate that my opponents claims are already false. Too ExpensiveSo yes, my opponent is correct that my argument helps us both. Increasing the supply does mean that the cost goes down, which does hurt the black market. But my plan fills the gap for all needed blood while my opponent's would not be capable of garnering all necessary packets. This means, that in my world the black market ceases to exist, and in my opponents it doesn't. Furthermore, the arguments I make about increasing the cost of care are pretty important when my opponent says things like, I quote, "If more blood is needed, more can simply be paid." The additional cost onto the providers of service means they raise costs on their clients which incetivizes people, with their autonomy, to go purchase their needs from the black market. Black MarketsThe black market forcibly takes blood, and does not tell people whether or not it was forcibly taken. Furthermore it's not tested for diseases which means people steer clear unless they can't afford the care anywhere else. -.-DeathsAs the red cross states, "The Red Cross never pays anyone to donate blood. Payment creates a potential incentive for prospective donors to lie about their health histories. The Red Cross draws blood only from volunteer donors. Scientific studies have proven that volunteer donors are the single greatest safeguard of the blood supply today." -http://chapters.redcross.org...This means that giving people money to donate blood spreads AIDs and other diseases which kills more people than the status quo. Compulsory schemes don't fall prey to this phenomena because they don't offer people money. It's difficult to attain plasma and blood matches for rare blood types which is utterly solved with my case, thus preventing deaths. And finally, even if my opponent wins all the autonomy arguments in the world, my case still provides blood for critical blood shortages which saves people's lives. Autonomy is already illusory and rampantly disregarded, while lives are quantifiable. Tah dah! Back at my opponent.