Oh, i have some words…but I couldn’t say them around the clergy….

It is ironic that at the very time that the settlement with Health and Human Services was made, the FDA, a section of the Department of Health and Human Services, was poised to approve implants. That means that the government was being paid for problems with a product that they would later approve anyway.

There are no words…….

So far, being straight forward and frank about the fallacy that women rarely have implant complications has not been believed. Thanks for sharing this about the exclusion clause. I am quite certain this reduced the cost of your premiums, but I wonder if they even insure implant and implanted related problems at all now. Do you happen to know? Most of our women are reporting great difficulty in getting any type coverage on their breasts unless they can prove cancer, without or without an exclusion clause.

One of two things could happen is someone actually took the challenge to crunch the numbers: 1. They would have a kick-off point to see the cost of implants and stats or 2. They would find out insurance policies are a possible financial solution for those who have problematic implants. If the answer would be 2. then it means someone could make money on insuring implants. It would be a win/win situation. Of course, that’s a huge IF. Unfortunately, our suspicions are probably correct.

Also, since you have been an activist in this area, do you have any specific facts and figures on the suit the gov’t filed against the manufacturers to recover the money paid out for women with implant related problems? I once heard that the gov’t filed a claim, too. Did anything ever happen with their attempt to seek compensation to the system for breast implant related claims? Was this ever a discussion factor when the FDA was considering silicone implant approval?

Would’t it be wonderful if there was an activist actuary (say that 10 times really fast) who would crunch the numbers on the cost of carrying insurance for breast implanted women - and just cover the implant surgery and re-surgery and re-surgery?

Hello, out there! Anybody interested?

You are so right about the prohibitive cost of a surcharge or even an insurance policy–because we KNOW how prohibitive the cost would have to be! So do they, which is why it was swept under the rug! Still, if we keep putting pressure on the powers that be on forcing this issue, someone would do the math at some point, and expose the real point of our suggestions. They are NOT safe, complications are NOT rare, and they are costing everyone a lot of $$$. They cannot answer these questions, nor can they allow meaningful discussion on this insurance or surcharge topic. It exposes the truth.

One pro-implant person once attempted to address this question. She made the excuse that no one would insure them, nor should they, because this is an elective procedure. What kind of answer is that??? It’s a non-answer. That’s the point–this is an unnecessary, elective procedure that is effecting our economy or our country, and our personal lives. So those who elect to have them, should try to take the burden from others in some way. No longer is augmentation an election for the rich only, so the majority of women who will ultimately be economically costly, will be women who are incapable of footing the bills.

When the manufacturers put a warranty on implants, the pro-implant forums were applauding this product warranty. Some warranty. They will replace your defective implant with another implant exactly like the one that failed. And YOU have to pay for the replacement surgery!

You were brilliant to bring up the idea of a surcharge–did anyone ever do the math on your idea? Comment at all? Discuss your idea? If they had seriously done that, it seems the REAL math would have come to light.

In early 1991, in my testimony before the Food and Drug Administration, I suggested a surcharge on the cost of every implant so that insurance coverage could be purchased for each implanted patient whether cancer or augmentation. Or a surcharge could be the basis of a well-invested fund to pay for explants. Of course my testimony fell on deaf ears. And any business person who was smart enough realized immediately that the actuarial charts for this project would make the surcharge so high as to be prohibitive. Still, it is all that breast implanted women would have.

Along with the economic costs of breast implants, there are physical costs that are never talked about.

If implants are removed it is impossible to remove them without taking some breast tissue along with them leaving the woman who sought implant so that she could have larger breasts, smaller breasts than she started with. And they will have scars on them, as well.

Breast implants have a permanence in the life of a woman who has chosen them. You are right - the cost both financial and physical is enormous.

And we who understand this from personal experience must make sure that women making a decision about getting implants realizes that they are going down a one-way street and that street is a dead end.

I look forward to hearing from you again, Jeena. Keep up the good work!