> Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>
>

>>>>>>> "RTA Cost Recovery - The year to date position (£222,394) has
>>>>>>> exceeded the budget (£87,000) for this year. The target budget
>>>>>>> for next year has been increased."

>>>>>> The amount recovered from insurance is a measly 135,394, compared
>>>>>> to a total budget of 10,200,894.

>>>>> Which part of "We've collected two and a half times as much money as
>>>>> we planned to" do you not understand?
>>>>> Oh, and how much did attending RTAs "cost"?

>>>> "Each accident generates a substantial cost in terms of resources,
>>>> lost production, health-care, social benefits and in personal pain,
>>>> grief and suffering. Road accidents have been estimated to cost the
>>>> country over £16,000 million per year."

>>> Nice answer. Shame it's to a completely different question.

>>>> Where the
>>>> injured person receives NHS treatment, but is not admitted to
>>>> hospital, the charge is increased from £505 to £547. The daily charge
>>>> for NHS in-patient treatment is increased from £620 to £672. The
>>>> maximum charge in respect of an injury is increased from £37,100 to
>>>> £40,179."

>>> Nice answer. Shame it's to a completely different question.

>

>>> Just for once, how about you leave the goalposts where you found 'em,
>>> eh? I know it'll prove difficult for you, but try it occasionally.

>> Actually you are the one who moved them.

>
> Actually, no, it wasn't.
>
> I replied to Mortimer's question -
>

>>>> Is it still true that the emergency services make a charge (usually
>>>> paid by someone's insurance) for attending an RTA whereas they don't
>>>> make a charge for attending other types of emergency?

>
> The entire sub-thread since then is above.
>
> And if you _really_ think it's "cheaper" if you look at the attendance
> costs of all three emergency services to a fatal RTA than an injury,
> you're even further into cloud cuckoo land than we all thought.