While that may add a barrier to donating -- many people won't want to do a good deed if it requires such an invasion of privacy -- why not treat giving blood as any other donation, and make it a tax deduction worth $X? That'd keep out those looking to make a quick buck, but still give incentive to those looking for some sort of pecuniary reward for their donations.
At 07:16 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although probably not marketable, why not use high incentives and some arbitrary standard that is strongly negatively correlated with being a high risk donor? Education, income or land ownership for instance? Bring a transcript showing at least two years of college, a W-2 showing 15k of wages, or a deed for any real property worth more than X, and get put on a "unlikely bum" list?
Daniel
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hentrich, Steffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:06 am Subject: paying for blood donations
> Dear armchairs, > > charitable organisations claim that paying for blood donations > could worsen the situation because it mostly attracts people from > high risk groups (junkies etc.)and those who donate blood are > people with a low risk of "poor blood quality". But otherwise > there is a lack of supply of blood because a lot of people have > not enough incentives to donate blood because of high opportunity > costs of time and maybe fear of pain and health problems. Do you > imagine solutions to attract more donors without select people > with low "blood quality"? My take: Maybe suppliers of blood > products could pay firms for attracting workers or health > insurance companies to give insurants incentives to donate blood? > At present german red cross germany has a campaign to attract > donors with a whopper menu. I dont belief that it is enough to > attract donors with a ordinary wage rate. And maybe this attracts > risky people more than healthy donors. What is the situation in > the USA? Are there better solutions? > > Greetings from Germany > > Steffen >
