Under the UK model, you pay about 11% national insurance tax on your income (which in your case would be nothing), and the healthcare is free at the point of need. That's the beauty of a national scheme - you don't buy into it, it's just there financed out of everybody's tax payments. Note that there are residency requirements, although accident and emergency treatment is always free (even for visitors), and there are reciprocal arrangements with many other European countries.

According to the NHS website:

Every year, an estimated 600 liver transplants are carried out in the UK. However, the number of people who need a liver transplant is much higher than the number of livers donated.

Consequently, deaths from liver disease remain high. In 2007, there were more than 13,000 deaths from liver disease in England and Wales.

The most effective way that people can help to reduce the number of deaths from liver disease is to join the NHS Organ Donor Register. See Useful links for more information.

The NHS treatment is free, although private insurance might pay for a room with curtains.

But as far as I can see, the only pertinent question regarding the story in hand is whether money changed hands for the liver itself. That's strictly illegal in the UK, and is the primary reason why people with money might seek a transplant abroad.

I notice incidentally thatLiver Transplant India will do a live donor transplant for only $60,000. But you have to supply your own donor.

That rate should really be looked at in the context of the corporate/media parent page which tells us

There really are some great locations on the Underground to make your filming project a success. Stations such as Charing Cross can be used exclusively with your own train, making the whole process more film-friendly.

For the general public, the rule is quite straightforward: don't use flash photography - the exception proves the rule that normal photography is acceptable.

if we had a good idea we could claim legal ownership of it

It used, in general, to be the case that ownership was shared, but the introduction of tuition fees has changed the balance. Since you are paying the University to educate you, the presumption must be that the rights to your invention remain with you. Compare for instance the old policy at Bristol University (google cache):

In the event that an undergraduate student or a postgraduate student on a taught course generates intellectual property in the course of a University project, either solely or in collaboration (where the collaborators may be fellow students, members of University of Bristol staff, employees of a sponsoring organisation or collaborative partner or a combination thereof), he or she is asked to assign to the University any intellectual property that he or she may generate. Assignment will only take place in the event that intellectual property is generated. A student shall then give to the University all reasonable assistance to enable the University to obtain patents or other forms of legal protection for the intellectual property.

with the current policy:

As an undergraduate student or a postgraduate student on a taught masters programme, you own the IP you create in addition to being the inventor. This is because the law sees you as a customer of the University rather than an employee.