Cant this Insurer be made to pay?!?
Discussion
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?
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.
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?
Don't know if that's still the case.
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. 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?
Anyway, When you crash your car the insurance pays for the ambulance so the line has already been drawn.
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?
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. 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.
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 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?And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.
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...And that's just me. Therefore I reckon that should cover the cost of an operation.
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff