Breast Implants
chris mason - 31/12/11 at 10:16 PM
Thought that might get your attention 
Am i missing something here?
40,000 Uk women have had the PIP breast implants, they probably chose them because they were cheaper than other brands, and now it turns out they
could be dodgy, they want the goverment (IE, you and me) to pay for them to be removed!
They found the money to have them fitted, now they can find the money to have them removed.
I'm getting older and things like this annoy me, knowing that my hard earned contribution to the UK is being wasted on useless things, and i
don't blame the Conversatives, having never voted in my life, due to the belief that they are all out for what they can get, i'm comming
round to a conservative way of thinking, and i will probably vote for them at the next election 
Happy New Year
Victor M
JoelP - 31/12/11 at 10:33 PM
This thread is pointless without pictures 
spiderman - 31/12/11 at 10:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chris mason
Thought that might get your attention
Am i missing something here?
40,000 Uk women have had the PIP breast implants, they probably chose them because they were cheaper than other brands, and now it turns out they
could be dodgy, they want the goverment (IE, you and me) to pay for them to be removed!
They found the money to have them fitted, now they can find the money to have them removed.
I'm getting older and things like this annoy me, knowing that my hard earned contribution to the UK is being wasted on useless things, and i
don't blame the Conversatives, having never voted in my life, due to the belief that they are all out for what they can get, i'm comming
round to a conservative way of thinking, and i will probably vote for them at the next election
Happy New Year
Victor M
Totally agree with the idiots having to pay to have them removed, they could then sue the manufactures for compensation as long as they do not expect
us to pay for that through legal aid. The same applys for tatto removal, self inflicted injury through stupidity. Only exception I would be happy to
pay for is those who had implants for medical reasons such as masectomy or deformed body, not for those who want to atract
"Celebrities/footballers and the like. Beauty as we all know comes from within, attractivness does not make you beautiful. Besides a couple of
inflated ballons in my opinion due not make you attractive just make you look ridiculous and shallow. 
Money can be better used to help those out of work who are looking for meaningful employment. I feel for those people who want to contribute to
helping this country get back on its feet but are struggling, I have been there myself and It can be sole destroying asking for help only to see all
the money and assistance going to those who do not deserve it. Happily been back in employment for 10 years+.
End of Rant.
Happy and Prosperous New year to you all.
JoelP - 31/12/11 at 10:52 PM
good point spiderman, i think the manufacture is bankrupt but the clinics surely must be liable? Supplying dodgy goods?
Ninehigh - 31/12/11 at 10:54 PM
Actually that's a good point, but they could do the payments bit by bit though... I mean would you like to have a toxic testicle inside you until
you save up £6k?
TAZZMAXX - 31/12/11 at 10:57 PM
Don't all breast implants have to be replaced every 10 years anyway? That would mean that most women who could've afforded them in the first
place may either have to have them removed or replaced courtesy of the NHS. Also a bit of a pee take.
I do agree though, some photos of pneumatic bimbo blond wimmin may make the discussion a bit more interesting!
scootz - 31/12/11 at 10:59 PM
I can see where you're coming from guys and I suppose I agree, but I can't help but think there are loads of folk out there who've also
caused serious harm to their own health through gluttony, drink, drugs and smoking, yet the NHS bails them out ad infinitum to the tune of
billions!
I also guess that the cost to remove these implants will be a drop in the ocean compared to the treatment of a number of subsequent cancers caused by
inaction.
But then I could be wrong... I frequently am! 
scootz - 31/12/11 at 11:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TAZZMAXX
I do agree though, some photos of pneumatic bimbo blond wimmin may make the discussion a bit more interesting!
I must be in the minority on this one as I find nothing even remotely sexy about fake boobies. For me, it's the equivalent of looking at an
undressed tailors dummy, or an inflatable-lady!
MEERKAT - 31/12/11 at 11:26 PM
Lets put this in he terms we all can relate to
you buy new wheels and tires from a french company (government licensed the wheels as fit for purpose) to make your car look better then the wheels
fail at high speed making you crash the car. The French company goes bust so who do you go to for spoiling your fun?
MikeRJ - 31/12/11 at 11:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I also guess that the cost to remove these implants will be a drop in the ocean compared to the treatment of a number of subsequent cancers caused by
inaction.
There is apparently no increase in cancer risk over and above the slight increase that goes with all implants.
scootz - 31/12/11 at 11:30 PM
... told you I was frequently wrong! Crikey... that means I was right!
owelly - 1/1/12 at 12:04 AM
I once spent three hours in casualty with Miss O who was dribbling blood all over the place. The waiting room was full with broken sports folk! It was
a saturday around midday and the staff were utterly overwhelmed by the amount of folks who were coming in. Just about every sort of sport was
represented but mainly rugby, football and hockeyists.
So if all these folks want to go and hurt themselves, why should I be paying for them to be fixed! Likewise, why should I pay for smokers to be fixed
(the amout spent on remedy far outweighs the revenue from tobacco taxes)?
But I'm a fatty and if I get a fat-illness, I'd rather like to be fixed please.....
austin man - 1/1/12 at 12:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by TAZZMAXX
I do agree though, some photos of pneumatic bimbo blond wimmin may make the discussion a bit more interesting!
I must be in the minority on this one as I find nothing even remotely sexy about fake boobies. For me, it's the equivalent of looking at an
undressed tailors dummy, or an inflatable-lady!
Im with you Scootz, them falsies are like trying to make a Robin Hood Look like a Catering Van
designer - 1/1/12 at 12:26 AM
Apparently 95% of the 40,000 were done private so the National Health should not touch them.
dave - 1/1/12 at 02:29 AM
Agree and disagree, why should the govt pay for the removal of the fake boobies,however I smoke so as far as I'm concerned when the time comes
for me needing Cancer and/or other respitory treatments the NHS/Govt can pick up the bill thank you very much.
Dusty - 1/1/12 at 03:00 AM
All these deluded women are going to be suing someone and making thousands. If, after all the evidence is weighed up, the NHS advises they should be
removed it should be on a 'Op now, pay up when the cash comes through' basis.
And has the NHS got the resources, surgeons, time to take out 80,000 implants without cancelling most work for genuinely sick people for the next
year?
trikerneil - 1/1/12 at 05:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
(the amout spent on remedy far outweighs the revenue from tobacco taxes)
Do you have any figures to back that statement up?
Neil
owelly - 1/1/12 at 06:53 AM
I did have figures to back-up my statement.....in 1995 when my other half did a paper on it for her degree!!
Richard Quinn - 1/1/12 at 08:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by TAZZMAXX
I do agree though, some photos of pneumatic bimbo blond wimmin may make the discussion a bit more interesting!
I must be in the minority on this one as I find nothing even remotely sexy about fake boobies. For me, it's the equivalent of looking at an
undressed tailors dummy, or an inflatable-lady!
Im with you Scootz, them falsies are like trying to make a Robin Hood Look like a Catering Van
Aren't Catering Vans one of the smallest?
bobinspain - 1/1/12 at 09:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by TAZZMAXX
I do agree though, some photos of pneumatic bimbo blond wimmin may make the discussion a bit more interesting!
I must be in the minority on this one as I find nothing even remotely sexy about fake boobies. For me, it's the equivalent of looking at an
undressed tailors dummy, or an inflatable-lady!
Im with you Scootz, them falsies are like trying to make a Robin Hood Look like a Catering Van
"Inflatable lady," Scott?
Did you hear the one about the bloke who goes into the sex-shop to buy life-sze doll.
Chap behind the counter offers him a 'Muslim' doll.
Customer say's "what's so special about that then?"
Shop owner says, "well they blow themselves up."
Boom-boom! (in all senses).
iank - 1/1/12 at 09:56 AM
The reason the NHS is considering paying is partly due to the crap publicity of the French govt agreeing to pay if we don't (imagine the red top
headlines of the first woman to get cancer while having those implants).
But mainly due to the fact the company that made them had declared itself bankrupt before the announcement so there is no company that can be sued.
On the tobacco tax vs treatment cost. I can quite believe it, but was once told if you took into account the overall reduction in pension/benefit
payments from the average reduced life expectancy it worked out about evens - which is a cynical calculation if it's true and were ever made by
one of our glorious leaders.
TheGiantTribble - 1/1/12 at 10:35 AM
Quite argree with if the women in question had it done private they should sort it not the NHS
But...actualy big but...BUT
Errrrr since it's a French company and Fance like us is part of the EEC, shouldn't there be some sort of payment for the treatments from the
EEC instead?
Or does the money only flow in one direction..London to Berlin not the other way round
jollygreengiant - 1/1/12 at 10:42 AM
Just to stir things up a bit.
So in the OP's original statement then (and to a degeree some of the later posters), does this general dengration of women and implants STILL
apply to those who were unfortunate enough to require breast reconstruction after suffering single or double mastectomy after cancer treatment or for
some other accidental reason then.
I pesonally think that some of you 'lads' out there should be a little careful with some of your statements.
Just my humble opinion, as I have known a few ladies who had this sort of treatment. God bless you ladies, and lads, just be glad that YOU are
unlikely to suffer what the ladies sometimes have to.
JGG
Richard Quinn - 1/1/12 at 11:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by TheGiantTribble
But...actualy big but...BUT
Let's try to stick to the topic
bobinspain - 1/1/12 at 11:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
Just to stir things up a bit.
So in the OP's original statement then (and to a degeree some of the later posters), does this general dengration of women and implants STILL
apply to those who were unfortunate enough to require breast reconstruction after suffering single or double mastectomy after cancer treatment or for
some other accidental reason then.
I pesonally think that some of you 'lads' out there should be a little careful with some of your statements.
Just my humble opinion, as I have known a few ladies who had this sort of treatment. God bless you ladies, and lads, just be glad that YOU are
unlikely to suffer what the ladies sometimes have to.
JGG
A bit more light and a bit less heat.
There's a good article in the Telegraph which puts a number on those requiring reconstructive surgery as opposed to breast enhancement for purely
cosmetic/aesthetic/vanity reasons. It quotes 'at least 3,000.' The article goes on to say (and is endorsed by the majority of posters) that
breast augmentation without a sound clinical reason should be treated in the same way as tattoo removal, i.e. a conscious decision to
'decorate' ones body as a 17 yr old, shouldn't result in the taxpayer stumping up the cost of removal when the wearer decides it was a
bad decision ten years later.
Fair point, well made I think.
gottabedone - 1/1/12 at 11:56 AM
If you're having a breast enlargement for "vanity" reasons, having your false boobs fixed on the NHS is one thing but if you later get
compensation then this is a very different argument.
.......but then didn't we have the dodgy botox a few years ago ( we had that Trout Pout Doris..........) - I bet we still paid for this after
the media hype moved onto another subject.
Have a good year guys!
Steve
wilkingj - 1/1/12 at 12:02 PM
IMHO ALL cosmetic surgery and treatments should be funded in total by the end user / recipient. The NHS should NOT be in the business of using our Tax
money to treat some persons Vanity Complex.
IMHO they ONLY exceptions are where they are for health reasons, eg reconstructive surgery due to a mastectony or similar.
Just having surgery for the sake of looking good should be totally funded by the recipient, as its not medically necessary.
If people can pay privately to have them put in, its their decision, and their problem. They should then pay to have them taken out, if thats what
they want. Otherwise they shoule learn to live with their mistakes.
People are naturally different shapes, sizes, looks and textures. (I mean the whole person here. Not just bOObs)
Personally, I recon you can tell 95% of the time the bOObs are fake. I think they look just so VERY fake.
People should learn to be staisfied with what they have.
I blame all these magaizines with their PhotoShopped / retouched pictures.
ITS NOT REAL LIFE... GET USED TO IT.
</Rant>
MikeRJ - 1/1/12 at 01:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dave
Agree and disagree, why should the govt pay for the removal of the fake boobies,however I smoke so as far as I'm concerned when the time comes
for me needing Cancer and/or other respitory treatments the NHS/Govt can pick up the bill thank you very much.
And by "NHS/Government" you actually mean tax payers, like the people posting on here.
orton1966 - 1/1/12 at 03:13 PM
If the NHS (us tax payers) ends up footing the bill for the removal of these implants, then it should be for removal only i.e. no free replacement
(unless the original implant was for medical/reconstructive reasons). I think you would then be surprised by the amount of people who suddenly decided
they can afford to have them re-done privately.
Surely the clinics that did the work should be taking some responsibility. In most consumer legislation the customer’s contract is with the retailer
(clinic) not manufacturer, did these clinics make their purchasing decision on price? What kind of approval for medical use do implants go through,
was that approval given in France or England?
Basically I don’t like the open cheque-book solution, yes if the nhs did the work they should put right any resulting problem but in most cases this
was private companies doing work for profit. if this had been a product recall, say on a faulty car, say saab (no longer with us) would the British
movement be offering to pay, no they would expect the garages that sold the vehicles to sort it.
mk85 - 16/12/14 at 07:49 PM
If i remember rightly the UK nhs would remove them for free but not replace them. But if you lived in Wales they removed and replaced them. I had a
partner at the time and they removed and replaced them. She lived one side of a road that was classed as Wales and the opposite was England! !
adithorp - 16/12/14 at 08:48 PM
Is that what they call a thread resurrection booby?
fesycresy - 16/12/14 at 08:52 PM
Bet he feels a bit of a 'tit' for doing that.
02GF74 - 16/12/14 at 09:34 PM
So how much will it actually cost? Probably a drop in the ocran to our governments wee away or givr as foreign aid to countries that are doing
awright e.g. india who get aid yet have the rupees to fund a space program.
adithorp - 16/12/14 at 09:49 PM
Need to nip this in the bud.
fesycresy - 17/12/14 at 02:35 AM
No, surely we need to keep abreast of the situation.
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Need to nip this in the bud.
Jon Ison - 17/12/14 at 07:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fesycresy
No, surely we need to keep abreast of the situation.
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Need to nip this in the bud.
Defiantly, someone as made a boob up of this................
Matt21 - 18/12/14 at 12:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
This thread is pointless without pictures
i agree...
Norfolkluegojnr - 18/12/14 at 03:15 PM
I my mammary serves me correctly, this was over 2 years ago!
Matt21 - 18/12/14 at 04:24 PM
better late than never....
Scuzzle - 18/12/14 at 04:42 PM
In 50 years time there are going to be loads of wrinkly grannies down the bingo hall with jet black tattood eyebrows and epic tits.
luke2152 - 18/12/14 at 04:55 PM
If you get a tattoo and it gets dangerously infected you'd expect the NHS to deal with it because its health related. Maybe you could sue the
artist later maybe not.
End of the day the removal of implants is not in the name of vanity.
adithorp - 18/12/14 at 05:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Norfolkluegojnr
I my mammary serves me correctly, this was over 2 years ago!
Class!
Three year old thread, lots of wee taking inuendo... and yet some are taking it seriously ???