FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[5thgearmax]

I think it should be for sure covered by medical if it necessaries. Any maybe covered if they are above 36D hahaha

[andrew]

If the person has had an implant(s) for medical reasons then they shouldn't have to pay out of their own pocket.

If the person that had an implant(s) for no other reason than sheer vanity (pathteic) then they should be charged a huge amount.

LOL what kind of reasoning is this?? Were you joking?

It doesn't matter what the intention is, the individual is still a CUSTOMER who got screwed and no one should have to pay from their pockets!

So someone who has had a implants for non-medical reasons should have these replaced on the NHS at a cost to the tax payer? That makes no sense whatsoever! Why should I pay (through taxes) for someone to have their fake tits replaced when they got implant for no other reason than sheer vanity?

Interesting that I'm not the only one in this thread with this view but you only latch onto me. Tells me all I need to know.

[darwin dali]

So, I request a service with a product that got the official seal of approval for safety, etc., by a government agency and I pay good bucks for it. My motivation for buying the product has no bearing on my rights of redress for shoddy work or faulty products under the manufacturer warranty. Later it turns out the company went belly-up and the product previously endorsed by the safety agency, is now deemed dangerous. In my view both, the (now bankrupt) company and the agency are liable for the damage I suffered. Provided that the product is not used in a not-recommended fashion, the reasons WHY I bought the product is irrelevant as I expect a properly working product for my money.

[andrew]

So the tax payer should pay for someone to have their implants removed when they got them for non-medical reasons? I'm sure all those waiting to have tumours removed will be delighted(!)

[darwin dali]

So the tax payer should pay for someone to have their implants removed when they got them for non-medical reasons? I'm sure all those waiting to have tumours removed will be delighted(!)

I'd go after the company owners first and squeeze every penny out of them and sue them for all kinds of violations to boot.
In the meantime, the agency should forward the money for the victims and try to recuperate some of it from the company (see above).

[andrew]

So the tax payer should pay for someone to have their implants removed when they got them for non-medical reasons? I'm sure all those waiting to have tumours removed will be delighted(!)

I'd go after the company owners first and squeeze every penny out of them and sue them for all kinds of violations to boot.
In the meantime, the agency should forward the money for the victims and try to recuperate some of it from the company (see above).

The company which manufactured the faulty implants should pay for the operations but I can see them disappearing with a mountain of debts. Sadly I can also see the tax payer being left with the bill for this one.

[What's Burning?]

I'm looking to research a technique to inexpensively remove these implants through repeated negative barometric pressure applied to certain areas of the breasts. I think it's worth a shot.

[darwin dali]

I'm looking to research a technique to inexpensively remove these implants through repeated negative barometric pressure applied to certain areas of the breasts. I think it's worth a shot.

Or in other words:

[Selcouth_Feline]

So the tax payer should pay for someone to have their implants removed when they got them for non-medical reasons? I'm sure all those waiting to have tumours removed will be delighted(!)

I'd go after the company owners first and squeeze every penny out of them and sue them for all kinds of violations to boot.
In the meantime, the agency should forward the money for the victims and try to recuperate some of it from the company (see above).

But this is the problem- a lot of private clinics can't or won't remove/replace and are saying the tax payer should foot the bill. Most of them are saying the cost is too high- which is why I'm questioning why they don't have some sort of liability insurance in place to meet the costs involved.

At a time when we have issues over some drugs being a postcode lottery, why should we pay out for something which is so directly self inflicted?

[LRW]

So, I request a service with a product that got the official seal of approval for safety, etc., by a government agency and I pay good bucks for it. My motivation for buying the product has no bearing on my rights of redress for shoddy work or faulty products under the manufacturer warranty. Later it turns out the company went belly-up and the product previously endorsed by the safety agency, is now deemed dangerous. In my view both, the (now bankrupt) company and the agency are liable for the damage I suffered. Provided that the product is not used in a not-recommended fashion, the reasons WHY I bought the product is irrelevant as I expect a properly working product for my money.

This is the only sensible response in this whole thread. People banging on about the women who had it done for vanity reasons should be charged loads for it are missing the point.

If a Government body passed these off as being safe, and now it seems they are not, then I hate to say it - but i think the Government should pay. And I am a tax payer. The easiest way of doing it is probably through the NHS. The only other way to handle it, would be the Private Clinics carry out the work (free of charge to the customer), and then they will pass the cost onto the Government. But they will charge the Government their full rate - which will be far greater than the cost of doing it on the NHS.

[racechick]

Further to this, experts are warning that the European kite system is flawed and other medical implants such as hip joints could be substandard. There is no guarantee that inspection checks are being done. In the case of the PIP implants, the manufacturers hid the substandard silicone when they knew the inspectors were due(the visits are announced 10 days ahead). There is now to be a review of the regulation of all medical devices. Better late than never I suppose