That we should pay people to donate blood

In a debate such as this there are two ways to win. Let me delineate:1. I could say we should pay people to donate blood because the disadvantages outweight the advantages. or2. I could say we should not pay people to donate blood because there is a more advantageous action that we should pursue instead. In this debate I will concede the points that my opponent has made and choose to argue the latter. The alternative action is: We should require people, by law, to give blood as per red cross specifications. I say red cross specifications because they do not accept blood from people with serious medical conditions or with non-viable blood (ex: HIV). There are a few simple advantages to this plan. First, as my opponent states, only 3% of the population gives blood. If nearly 100% were required to do so, then blood would have to be donated quite infrequently. With a 3300% increase (from 3% to 99%) people would be required to supply blood about once every decade. Secondarily, this absolutely solves the blood shortage crisis. With a constant gauranteed supply of blood, no one must die because of a lack. Having said that, let's examine my opponents case. We need blood in hospitals. I agree.We're Running Out I also agree, however I will dispute the means by which we acquire blood. My opponent advocates for paying people, I'll suggest that this method does not have gauranteed procurement. It's still quite possible that people do not supply enough blood even when payed some amount of capital. However, the advocacy that we should pursue instead (requiring), gaurantees the blood needed. I will talk about this in more detail soon. The Debate is Not an Ethical QuestionThe arguments my opponent is making here are the reasons he will lose this debate. Larztheloser is in an unwinnable double bind. Either we pay people a neglible sum of money and they are not very inspired to donate blood, or we pay them an inspirable sum but then the expense is passed onto the medical system. As my opponent correctly articulates, a blood bank will first test your blood and then sell it onto hospitals or medical facilities. However, if the blood bank must first buy the blood, then they have a more substantial overhead. To recoup this cost they pass some amount of the price onto the hospitals or medical centers by increasing the cost of the blood that they sell. Ultimately this means that hospitals and medical centers have less capital to work with which effects their treatment and care capacity. My advocacy is quite superior. We should blood banks pay people because we should just require people to give blood instead. This advocacy has too amazing benefits. First, it means that blood banks don't have an overhead which they must pass onto the medical center. Thereby hospitals and medical centers will maintain a high level of care. Second, with a gauranteed supply of blood, the cost of blood will actually subtantially drop due to supply and demand economics. This means that blood will actually become less expensive for hospitals to purchase which will allow them to allocate resources towards more important issues. In the end, requiring blood not only avoids the disadvantages of my opponents advocacy, but actually promotes a substantial advantage over the status quo. Better to Too Many Donors Than Too FewQuite true. But my opponents advocacy does not gaurantee too many donors. It may well increase the donors, but this is not a given. The counter-advocacy, requiring blood, is more advantageous because it allows control of a dependable rate. If officials realize that we have too much or too little blood then they can just alter the rate at which people are required to give blood. With my opponents advocacy this is not true. If there is too little blood, all they can do is give more money in hopes of getting more people to donate (see my arguments about why this is a problem). If there is too much blood, they can attempt to do the inverse. But neither effect is immediate or even dependable which means that blood is either too sparse or wasted under my opponents advocacy. Under the counter advocacy we will have a near perfect supply of blood at all times. Illegal Blood Markets SuckThis is true but my opponents case does not solve for illegal blood markets at all. As I previously mentioned, charging for blood means that the costs get pushed onto blood providers (hospitals etc...). This means that their cost of care becomes higher, in turn, which disuades people from using their service. The outcome is that impoverished people will seek other venues in which to procure care, thereby inevitably promoting the black market. Let me explain this clearly. The reason why illegal blood markets exist is not because blood supremely expensive for a patient to acquire. In fact, when a patient receives their hospital bill, the cost of transfused blood will likely be one of their least worries. Where as a blood unit costs between $150-$250, the cost for a minor surgery can often surmount $10,000. Thus, the reason illegal blood markets exist is because the overall treatment cost is quite high. My opponent exacerbates the overall treatment cost by pushing costs onto the blood providers, which in turn actually fuels the illegal blood market. However, my counter advocacy is 100% solvent. I decrease the cost on the providers, and since I gaurantee a blood supply, I dramatically decrease the price of blood. This kills the black market because it destroys the profit motive on two levels. Thus, the counter advocacy should be pursued in lieu of my opponents advocacy. The Bottom LineWe should not pay people to donate blood because their is a better path forward. Requiring people to donate, is a much more solvent option. My opponent will likely try to argue that the government could just subsidize all of this, however I will win key probability arguments. Also, I have prepared some deficit argumentation if he chooses to pursue this argumentation. I look forward to his response.