Since the physicians who work in the ED and the physicians who make the determination of "brain death", by definition are *NOT* transplant specialists who "undertake care for years" of those awaiting transplant, this scenario is a straw man fantasy that simply does not exist in the real world. Most states require *TWO* independent physicians to determine "brain death" (usually one has to be a neurologist--and neurologists aren't transplant docs). Transplant physicians are highly sought after and they *don't* waste their valuable time and specialized skills by slumming about in the ED. Sorry, no ghouls at the bedside. Really.

"Obscene rates" to transplant? Okay, if it's *your* body, you can go to someone who didn't spend 4 years undergrad, 4 years of medical school, and then an additional 7 years in residency to become a transplant specialist (at pay that is less than an office secretary), plus the services of a doctor with the same schooling and 4 years of residency who takes out the donated organ while the transplant surgeon is prepping you. Then there's the cost to build the hospital (about a million dollars a bed, nowadays), the cost of the nurses and techs and equipment and folks to run the equipment . . . If you want your transplant on the cheap, in a back alley, I expect there will be someone to do it, but it won't necessarily have the same result

No one says (including the author of this article) that there are not poor people. Indeed, churches (such as my own) tend to be pretty effective at reaching out to those truly in need, rather than what, according to the FACTS, are the MAJORITY of folks *classified* as "in poverty", who have many of what most of the world considers luxuries.

Except for being fat, instead of starving. (MS has the highest rate of obesity in the nation--and it isn't the rich that are pouring on the pounds.)

If you can't refute the FACTS (that the majority of "poor" people do, in fact, have these things), just throw insults, eh?

(cont'd) The point, as I took it, was that (a) "poverty" is relative, (b) "poverty" does not, in practice, mean doing without what many of us realize are luxuries. I can state that we do not live in poverty and my children do not have a gaming system (other than a DS, which each of them earned), nor do we have cable. Somehow we manage just fine and are not SUFFERING, thanks! Since money to support the "poor" is taken from others at the point of a gun (hey, don't believe me? See what happens if you fail to pay your taxes!) those of us who pay for the benefits the poor recieve have a legitimate right to know what they are using our funds for. After all, it's been sold to all of us that the poor "need" the assistance. If they...

It appears you missed the point of the article. There will *always* be "poor" because there will *always* be a bottom 20%. (Ditto, there will always be "rich".) However, what has been changed in our societal discussion is what it *means* to be poor. I've been "poor" (though not in the past 25 years, thank goodness--and thank my strenuous efforts and good decision-making on career, because no "Job Fairy" landed on my shoulder and sprinkled "Success Dust" on my head!.) Some choices while poor (spending on cable, for instance, which I did without and somehow managed to survive ;) make it more difficult for those who choose cable to get, for example, better food.

I assure you that my parents and grandparents paid plenty for real estate in good school districts and paid plenty in gas taxes. Since roads are overwhelmingly paid for by taxes on those that use the roads (gasoline and car/truck/trailer registration), or benefit from the roads (property taxes, so folks can get to and from their house), they hardly can be considered "assistance". It's not like the government just handed out free money unconnected with a fee on those who use and benefit from the service.

You are ridiculous (there, doesn't name-calling and accusation enhance the discussion? ) So far, newspapers keep getting published and are available at a cost less than internet and cable. TV stations still keep broadcasting using the electromagnetic spectrum and folks receive those broadcasts (but not Sports Network or Sex Network or Cartoon Network ;) for free. In fact, both newspapers *AND INTERNET* are free at our public library (a whole bunch of different newspapers, actually, as well as lots of computers). Ignorance is a choice, not a function of whether you have internet access or cable tv in your home.

Let's not forget national defense, either! Just because *we* aren't going to seize the high ground (from holders of which there is pitifully little one can do in defense), doesn't mean other countries aren't going. (See, recent stories about China's moon aspirations . . . and I bet they won't put faulty chips in their own stuff, either! )