Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

hora

Original Poster:

18,459 posts

96 months

sunbeam alpine

2,629 posts

73 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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.

Breadvan72

18,434 posts

48 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

10,413 posts

94 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

2,059 posts

81 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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.
Advertisement

JQ

2,317 posts

64 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

1,034 posts

25 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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.

3,726 posts

136 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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.

hora

Original Poster:

18,459 posts

96 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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.
This

chriscpritchard

259 posts

50 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

2,059 posts

81 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

1,595 posts

90 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

11,823 posts

35 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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. rolleyes

h0b0

2,059 posts

81 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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. rolleyes
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.

The Spruce goose

6,231 posts

80 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

6,815 posts

73 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

5,924 posts

76 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

6,815 posts

73 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

1,595 posts

90 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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

713 posts

40 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
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...

2 3
Reply to Topic