I was thinking of resorts abroad, in which case the treatment would be covered by the skier's insurance and the insurance company would no doubt try to reclaim the money from whoever failed to maintain the ski-lift.
In this case, any treatment that is required (in my view) ought to be funded by the people who profited by the original operations. Basically, I am just fed up of private businesses taking huge profits when things go well and evading their responsibilities and expecting the tax payer to pay when things go badly.
At the moment, as far as I know, these women are having no problems with the implants. Until someone raised the issue, I'm sure they were totally happy with what they'd had done. Nothing has actually changed. Only the perceived risk of something going wrong has changed. I therefore see no reason to spend money to remove them unless and until something actually goes wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 08:15 pm (UTC)In this case, any treatment that is required (in my view) ought to be funded by the people who profited by the original operations. Basically, I am just fed up of private businesses taking huge profits when things go well and evading their responsibilities and expecting the tax payer to pay when things go badly.
At the moment, as far as I know, these women are having no problems with the implants. Until someone raised the issue, I'm sure they were totally happy with what they'd had done. Nothing has actually changed. Only the perceived risk of something going wrong has changed. I therefore see no reason to spend money to remove them unless and until something actually goes wrong.