Cant this Insurer be made to pay?!?

[sunbeam alpine]

If I have understood the article correctly, the costs are so high because he wants to go the private route to save time. The option is also available to go via the NHS at no cost, but would take longer.

[anonymous-user]

A practical problem: unless the claimant can obtain an order for a speedy trial, it will take about a year to resolve his claim, by which time he can be treated on the NHS.

[Engineer1]

It's also a dangerous precedent to set that the claimant can choose the place where the treatment is performed, how long before some chancer decides there is the perfect clinic in Miami?

[h0b0]

Why should the NHS, and therefore, the people of England pay for the surgery? Surely the surgery should be paid for by the negligent party, or their insurance company.

[JQ]

h0b0 said:

Why should the NHS, and therefore, the people of England pay for the surgery? Surely the surgery should be paid for by the negligent party, or their insurance company.

Because that's what is is - free healthcare for all, you can't pick and choose.

If they went down your route, would you pay for your thumb to be fixed if you hit it with a hammer, you'd be negligent after all? What about fatties or smokers, should they pay too?

[Fozziebear]

I think he's treading on thin ice with his putting down of the treatment times for NHS patients, it's gonna take longer than a year for his court case, then it's a case of appeals etc. he would be better being patient and getting the NHS on his side, if he's in that much pain they will help him.

[Sticks.]

JQ said:

h0b0 said:

Why should the NHS, and therefore, the people of England pay for the surgery? Surely the surgery should be paid for by the negligent party, or their insurance company.

Because that's what is is - free healthcare for all, you can't pick and choose.

If they went down your route, would you pay for your thumb to be fixed if you hit it with a hammer, you'd be negligent after all? What about fatties or smokers, should they pay too?

When I had an acccident some years ago which meant a stay in hosp, I had to make a contribution to the NHS for my care from the damages.

Don't know if that's still the case.

[chriscpritchard]

Injuries as a result of car accidents are chargeable to the at fault party by the NHS, the fees are, however, fixed by leigislation.

[h0b0]

JQ said:

Because that's what is is - free healthcare for all, you can't pick and choose.

If they went down your route, would you pay for your thumb to be fixed if you hit it with a hammer, you'd be negligent after all? What about fatties or smokers, should they pay too?

The NHS pays for your thumb if you hit it because that is an accident. This guy crashed his car while drunk and fled the scene. He has been imprisoned for his actions and this was not an accident.

Anyway, When you crash your car the insurance pays for the ambulance so the line has already been drawn.

[Futuramic]

JQ said:

h0b0 said:

Why should the NHS, and therefore, the people of England pay for the surgery? Surely the surgery should be paid for by the negligent party, or their insurance company.

Because that's what is is - free healthcare for all, you can't pick and choose.

If they went down your route, would you pay for your thumb to be fixed if you hit it with a hammer, you'd be negligent after all? What about fatties or smokers, should they pay too?

We smokers already pay for the NHS several times over through the tax levied on cigarettes.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

h0b0 said:

Why should the NHS, and therefore, the people of England pay for the surgery? Surely the surgery should be paid for by the negligent party, or their insurance company.

Great idea. Insurance premiums are far too low. Let's add in billions of extra costs for insurers to push them up to a realistic level.

[h0b0]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Great idea. Insurance premiums are far too low. Let's add in billions of extra costs for insurers to push them up to a realistic level.

I find it staggering that you want to pay for the damage caused by a drunk driver. How very charitable of you. I personally do not work to pay for drunks to destroy people's lives. I think all of the financial burden of ones actions should lay in the hands of those responsible.

Also, once the insurance company is done paying they go after the drunk to cover their costs.

I believe in the NHS in principal but if we want it to be a success the people should not be held responsible for the actions of some scum.

[anonymous-user]

Futuramic said:

We smokers already pay for the NHS several times over through the tax levied on cigarettes.

only recently have taxes really increased and when you die of lung cancer, emphysema , heart attack the cost in treating you will be a lot greater than you paid.

[Nigel Worc's]

Futuramic said:

We smokers already pay for the NHS several times over through the tax levied on cigarettes.

I don't, I pay Belgium taxes, but that aside, a lot of immigrants don't contribute towards the system either, so why would anyone wish to pick on smoking tax payers (general tax that is, rather than ciggy tax).

[14-7]

Futuramic said:

We smokers already pay for the NHS several times over through the tax levied on cigarettes.

So if your taxes don't cover your operation (god forbid you need one) does that mean I can say you aren't having the op as it eats in to my contributions?

[Nigel Worc's]

14-7 said:

So if your taxes don't cover your operation (god forbid you need one) does that mean I can say you aren't having the op as it eats in to my contributions?

I hope you can't, I empty the nhs monthly ! (well it seems like that when I go to the chemist.)

[Futuramic]

14-7 said:

Futuramic said:

We smokers already pay for the NHS several times over through the tax levied on cigarettes.

So if your taxes don't cover your operation (god forbid you need one) does that mean I can say you aren't having the op as it eats in to my contributions?

Let's use a random figure of £5 tax for 20 cigarettes. If I smoke three packs a week then I contribute £15. Over a year that becomes £780. I have been smoking for 7 years now so have already given, approximately, £5,460. If I carry on at the same rate for another forty years I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.

[moreflaps]

Futuramic said:

Let's use a random figure of £5 tax for 20 cigarettes. If I smoke three packs a week then I contribute £15. Over a year that becomes £780. I have been smoking for 7 years now so have already given, approximately, £5,460. If I carry on at the same rate for another forty years I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.

Tobacco revenue in the Uk is massive -its 12 BILLION pounds per year. The _whole_ NHS costs 100 billion so I'd say smokers are certainly paying more than their fair share...

[Fozziebear]

There is no operation to reverse the effects of smoking, just drugs, nebulisers, oxygen and a slow death. Every time I see my father he's fading away, so £36,000 is nothing to me, even a billion wouldn't turn back the damage that stick of death has done to him. I know it was his choice to smoke, which he has told me on several occasisions, but the tax just doesn't justify the death/loss

[daz3210]

Futuramic said:

I will have paid £31,200 which added to the first figure provides a grand total of £36,660!

And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.

I would hazard a guess the total cost of care will not be covered!