WebMD Community Talk Show

The difference here is the French government supplies health care to all its citizens (it is in effect the insurance provider), the US does not. Once the company that manufactured faulty devices went belly-up, it is actually cheaper in the long run for the French government to pony up the cash to remove the devices before additional problems manifest. It's a form of preventative care.

With the current set-up in the US, if a company that makes faulty devices goes under, it's the insurance providers responsibility to get the devices removed (and if necessary, to have a suitable replacement put in) in order to preserve their paying customer's health and quality of life. If a person is not insured, that responsibility falls on them (and any attorney/laywer they wish to hire to gain compensation or care on their behalf). The only case where the US government could be held liable/responsible is if the manufacturing company and/or it's faulty product was somehow subsidized/endorsed by the government, or the person with the faulty device is a government employee...and as long as the US government is not the insurance provider for US citizens, it's a setup that makes sense IMO.

Leaders of defunct companies are already held liable by the media (judged in the court of public opinion); but if it can be proved that they knowingly released a faulty/inferior product that would endanger consumer health, they deserve to be brought up on criminal charges as well.

Who should pay? Mitt Romney.

"It's a form of preventative care. "

You've got it in one, BalconyBelle (I live in France). Basically, if's an economic decision.

PS - Health care is supplied to all residents, not only to citizens.

Not the government!!!!

The government should not pay. People should be very careful when they decide to have this kind of surgery. They must check out everything about it and take responsibility for their own decisions.

The customer needs tyo "BEWARE".
The whole medical community should be on the hook !!!!!!!
The supplier, the doctors, hospital, and all others in the selling end.
The patient does not have all of the obligation of being totally responsibe.The patient is swayed by the medical comunity, and sometimes this can be a daunting task.

That's not the point. The point is that these implants occasionally ruptured and became a cancer risk. It is cheaper in the long run to pay for them to be removed than to pay for long, painful cancer treatment.

@charlieharry who said, "The government should not pay. People should be very careful when they decide to have this kind of surgery. They must check out everything about it and take responsibility for their own decisions."

Do you include women who are getting reconstructive surgery after mastectomy?