Breast implants: taxpayer problem

Pross

I tend to agree with the OP on this. Where any cosmetic surgery is undertaken that is not medically recommended, for issues such as breast reconstruction following surgery or the like, then why should the NHS fund rectifying it when it goes wrong? There should be an insurance premium included in the initial treatment to ensure that these mistakes can be rectified privately, maybe the additional cost would then put people off. It differs slightly from treatment for drink and drug abuse as it has been caused by a private medical system in the first place so it should be their responsibility to put right. There are other examples of the NHS charging costs back such as claiming the costs of ambulances for RTAs or sporting accidents against insurance companies so maybe the work can be carried out by the NHS and they can then claim the costs back from the original surgeon's PI insurance?

rick_chasey

It's not universal healthcare then, is it?

Ron Stuart

A picture can say a thousand words

nevman

the recent survey didnt address size as that wasnt the issue-big or small,men conclusively prefer women not to have fake breasts,

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12825790&p=17353855&hilit=natural+v+fake#p17353855

Ron Stuart

nevman wrote:

the recent survey didnt address size as that wasnt the issue-big or small,men conclusively prefer women not to have fake breasts,

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12825790&p=17353855&hilit=natural+v+fake#p17353855

+1

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not universal healthcare then, is it?

But in that case it isn't now is it? There is plenty of stuff within the NHS that has to be paid for such as dental treatment, glasses, prescriptions. In choosing to undergo private medical treatment then the results of any complications arising should be the responsibility of the private medical practitioner.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not universal healthcare then, is it?

But in that case it isn't now is it? There is plenty of stuff within the NHS that has to be paid for such as dental treatment, glasses, prescriptions. In choosing to undergo private medical treatment then the results of any complications arising should be the responsibility of the private medical practitioner.

Then I think it should be universal.

If you have something re your health, the NHS should be able to deal with it.

Don't care how or why you have it.

Jez mon

But Rick, it isn't that simple is it? A lot of people have something slightly wrong with their health, and there is only so much money to go around...you have to make some rather horrible decisions, so should £x go to saving someone's amateur sports career, or saving someone's life, or maybe even a few people's lives, or maybe someone's sight, or their ability to walk...

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

But Rick, it isn't that simple is it? A lot of people have something slightly wrong with their health, and there is only so much money to go around...you have to make some rather horrible decisions, so should £x go to saving someone's amateur sports career, or saving someone's life, or maybe even a few people's lives, or maybe someone's sight, or their ability to walk...

That's why chaps like me get all hot and bothered about stories of tax collectors wining and dining with firms who owe hundreds of million of pounds in tax that ends up not being paid.

What I object to is this whole 'it's my taxpayers money' chat.

It's not your money. The cash is there to be spend for the greater good, to protect everyone in society. Not to spend on what you see fit. If it was like that, why bother taxing anyone?

You get a small say when (if) you vote.

AndyRubio

Pep

GiantMike wrote:

Pep wrote:

I had a sport injury for which I needed an operation. Without operation, I could have continued a normal life, but could no longer play sport. NHS told me they won't treat me because they are not there to "waste" money on sport.

Sorry to pry, but are you willing to tell us the nature of the injury? Did they actually say it would be a 'waste' of money?

Degenerative Achille tendon, caused by overuse.
Yes, they sayd it was a waste of money. So, I "wasted" my own money, I think it was well spent.

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ja ... les-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

Pep

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

rick_chasey

Pep wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

Confidence thing right? Maybe they're concerned about doing the deed for fear of testicle mockery/disapproval?

I'm sure you've occasionally got nervous when you've dropped your pants to reveal the goods, hoping they meet expectations.

GiantMike

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm sure you've occasionally got nervous when you've dropped your pants to reveal the goods, hoping they meet expectations.

Nope, just you Rick

Aggieboy

Pep wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

Lots of men haven't got any balls. Look through 'Cake Stop' you'll find plenty of them - "My wife won't let me ride my bike", "How do I hide my bike from....", "It's the bike or me....", "Girls in Knitwear is porn", "I had to propose to my boyfriend and he said "Yes" even though I'm on the rebound" etc.

nevman

Sizing is the problem of course-dont want to overdo it nor is it worth being modest over this.
I had to choose between donkey and Swaledale ram;of course,went for the latter.

Pross

Pep wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

People who have one or both removed as a result of testicular cancer often have a prosthetic but I can't imagine anyone doing it for vanity - if anything it makes the important bit in the middle look smaller if they are large!

Frank the tank

Not read the entire thread so please excuse me if this point as been made previously.

IMO, if the implants were purely for cosmetic purposes (not after a mastectomy though) and were a private investment then they should only be replaced by the NHS in case of rupture as an emergency procedure. If the recipient wants to have them removed as a precaution they should pay for it themselves.

Like numpties who have tattoos and then have them removed on the NHS, disgusting waste of taxpayers money.

nwallace

In a state run health care system the economics can never be under the patient's control.
In private care there is no reason the patient can not demand something be done at their cost provided it is within the ethics of the surgeon involved.


In this case there are multiple reasons why cosmetic surgery may take place:
Vanity : Speaks for itself
Lollo Ferrari, Jordan etc.

Returning Normality : Making someone look "normal" after an event that has made them "abnormal"
So replacing tissue removed in a mastectomy, replacing tissue removed in a testectomy.

Psychological: By carrying out the operation a psychological issue is resolved cheaper than trying to resolve the psychological issue itself.
Patient has significant psychological issue with their image and simply resolving the issue is easier. (Sex Change springs to mind as one of these, as the patient deeply believes they are what they aren't)


Anyhow:
The grade of silicone used in these implants present a serious risk to health if a leak was to occur, with a potential outcome of death.

The UK line was initially (and I think still is) that the implants can stay as the risk of leakage is small, but should it happen then it's going to have to come out in A&E at State cost.

The manufacturer can't pay because they are out of business.
The surgeons picked licensed products manufactured by a licensed company.
The patient got an operation from a licensed surgeon.

The surgeons of course have to have liability insurance to cover any of their fuck ups, maybe that will cover it?
But that doesn't stop the NHS having to pay to deal with worried patients who has something in them that may just kill them.


Oh and if your achillies is fucked but you can live with it in that state then Healthcare Economics says No to fixing it.
However bizzarley Healthcare Ecconomics says yes to very expensive surgery and procedures with very low success rates to give cancer patients and extra 2 minutes of life. But that's politics.

DIESELDOG

Aggieboy wrote:

Pep wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

Lots of men haven't got any balls. Look through 'Cake Stop' you'll find plenty of them - "My wife won't let me ride my bike", "How do I hide my bike from....", "It's the bike or me....", "Girls in Knitwear is porn", "I had to propose to my boyfriend and he said "Yes" even though I'm on the rebound" etc.

I missed that thread, maybe I should take a look

Oh and on a serious note, no, we should not be picking up the tab, if these "procedures" have gone "tits up" as some so perfectly said, then pay for your own to be put right, (or left a bit), surgery on the NHS for breast reconstruction following cancer or some other illness is a different ball game (see what I did there?), and should not come into this topic.

Then again, we give dogs replacement balls after removing theirs...

Love n hugs

DD

ChrisSA

Isn't this a Sales of goods act issue?

If the implants are not fit for purpose, go back to the seller. If the place has gone bust then go back to the loan/credit card company that bankrolled the op. Or France.

If they were genuinely supplied by the NHS then let the NHS deal with those.

verylonglegs

ChrisSA wrote:

Isn't this a Sales of goods act issue?

If the implants are not fit for purpose, go back to the seller. If the place has gone bust then go back to the loan/credit card company that bankrolled the op. Or France.

If they were genuinely supplied by the NHS then let the NHS deal with those.

Is there not a considerably more human element to this? Some of the arguments here, and correct me if I'm mistaken, are taking the viewpoint that even though there maybe a risk of serious health implications (life threatening?) by leaving them in we should in fact just shrug our shoulders and say ' it was your choice' and leave them to it?

Can we assume everyone advocating this stance has never touched alcohol, eaten red meat, ever smoked etc thus avoiding all know potential health risks they are therefore in a position to deny everyone else healthcare on their criteria because they are bloody perfect. As soon as you open the door even slightly on selective treatment the whole NHS thing collapses imo.

morstar

OK, as the OP, I think I'd better clarify my own position.

I fully accept the argument that the NHS cannot be selective and was quite concious of the people in glass houses logic that could be applied should I choose to ride my bike down a big hill badly and end up in hospital.

However, I guess my beef is best summed up by the post from Chris SA regarding the sale of goods act. Why do those principles not apply here? Go back to where you had the work done and have them put it right.

These people paid for a service from an industry that I admittedly despise. Currently the media seems to be really talking this issue up and trying to generate widespread anger towards the government where it doesn't really appear to be widespread. Oooh, our nasty government blah blah blah. My politics are actually left of centre but I really don't see this as a government issue. Try as I might, I simply can't feel outraged.

Now, if people were lobbying their local MP's or the government to lend their weight to forcing the plastic surgery industry to deal with this problem itself, I would see that as perfectly reasonable.

Plastic surgeons who likely make a fortune should be made to foot the bill. I hadn't realised the manufacturer had gone bust so the surgeon can't counter claim from them but, either his insurance kicks in or he stands the loss. I feel sure, most plastic surgeons can stand the loss. This is where I see parallels with sales of goods act.

NHS rightly picks up the tab where the work was done on NHS or in emergency cases as they would anyway.

Ron Stuart

Maybe there is something Government can do and that is look after the interests of the United Kingdom public first and stop supporting the interests of a very small minority of business interests by ignoring the health risks those minority pose.
For those that chose to have vanity surgery there should much more information about the risks involved, after all although it took ages to implement and countless deaths we finally put health warnings on fag packets. The cost should be born by the fake tit industry and should cover all types of advertising, plus more research and control should be made of the materials used in the implants.
I would like to see a nationwide campaign started to change women’s feelings about the way they look, most of their problem is self perceived, time to fight the Market Researchers and some men who put pressure and anxiety on perfectly healthy women to have themselves cut open and have plastic bags full of cr*p sewn in. :idea:

Pep

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pep wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/breast-implant-firm-made-testicles-report

Seems it's not just women and breasts.

I don't get it...
Why do men want fake balls? Women want fake tits so they appear as more sexually attractive, and knowing this makes them happier.
But men? Sure women don't look at men's balls when they seem men walking on the street or queing in the shops... or do they...? :?

Confidence thing right? Maybe they're concerned about doing the deed for fear of testicle mockery/disapproval?

I'm sure you've occasionally got nervous when you've dropped your pants to reveal the goods, hoping they meet expectations.

Yes, I did feel a little nervous for that more than once.
But all in all... I can't believe that once you and a beautiful lady got that far she could possibly change mind because of the size of the balls...
Sorry guys but I still don't get it.

We look at womens' breasts all the time in all places, bus, library, canteen, shops, street...
But do women look at our balls as much? :shock:

Tom Butcher

There is only so much money to go round but the fact this is - to an extent - self inflicted shouldn't influence the decision as to whether the NHS funds removal or not.

Pep

Tom Butcher wrote:

There is only so much money to go round but the fact this is - to an extent - self inflicted shouldn't influence the decision as to whether the NHS funds removal or not.

I'm not happy with this but I agree.

But apart from the question whether taxpayer pays for the treatment or not, perhaps it's fair whoever is "responsible" for the problem (surgeon? hospital? silicon maker? women?) should be requested to pay some sort of "fine"?
Not necessarily because of the extra cost to taxpayer, but because such thing should not have happened.

If a food supplier poisons its customer sure they woldn't get away with it...

Ron Stuart

Ask yourselves: Why are we dealing very expensively with the symptom excusively rather than the cause as well :?:

pb21

What if people have already developed cancer as a result of these implants.

If the company still existed they would be entitled to sue, but as they don’t what can they do?