This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Drunk A&E patients 'should pay' for hospital treatment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12428765

What does everyone else feel about this?

I can see the point they are making, but to me this could be the start of a slippery slope if it happened.
I mean if drunk people have to pay, then why not make overweight people pay, or smokers, or people who injured themselves doing sport etc etc.

Plus, what about drunk people who end up in hospital through no fault of their own? Perhaps someone attacked them or whatever.

And more specifically, how would it be done? I assume they wouldn't make the person pay up before they are treated?

Reply 1

DiZZeeKiD

16

The principle behind it is basically good, but in practice this would never work - like you say, there are too many exceptions to justify the rule and to be honest, I'd probably rather know my tax money was going towards stitching up a drunken lad whose stacked over rather than a big fat fatty who can't say no to McDonalds - just my opinion.

Reply 2

rabbits_eat_tigers

I think the NHS should to a degree be half 'privatised' in the sense that those of whom who take a series of actions that they know will harm their body deliberatly should have to pay for their treatment. Im not talking about people who physically harm themselves because they should be considered as mentall ill however those of whom who drink and eat too much, then go to the NHS and get treatment for cancer and other possible illnesses are disgraceful. The tax payers money is stretched as it is and none should be given to these people. Services such as therapy and self-help groups should be subsidised by the government however the actually treatment should be payed for by the idiot who got themselves in that state to begin with. They should have to pay (with no interest added) the money back to the people in a series of payments, like a loan.....

Reply 3

L i b

19

Agree with the OP - this is utterly facile rhetoric from a moronic pressure group. The whole idea is unworkable and completely undesirable. There is no reason whatsoever to draw some arbitrary line which suggests that drunk people - unlike anyone else - somehow should have financial culpability for their injuries. Moreover, from a medical perspective, it would encourage patients to lie in order to avoid charges, thus making it more difficult to treat them.

The silly ***** who suggested this should also keep in mind that many of the people who end up in hospital, paralytically drunk, are some of the most vulnerable and least able to pay: the homeless, alcoholics and young people.

Reply 4

WelshBluebird

OP

16

Original post by rabbits_eat_tigers

I think the NHS should to a degree be half 'privatised' in the sense that those of whom who take a series of actions that they know will harm their body deliberatly should have to pay for their treatment. Im not talking about people who physically harm themselves because they should be considered as mentall ill however those of whom who drink and eat too much, then go to the NHS and get treatment for cancer and other possible illnesses are disgraceful. The tax payers money is stretched as it is and none should be given to these people. Services such as therapy and self-help groups should be subsidised by the government however the actually treatment should be payed for by the idiot who got themselves in that state to begin with. They should have to pay (with no interest added) the money back to the people in a series of payments, like a loan.....

So what if the illness or condition has nothing to do with the actions?
Or what if the actions are part of every day life? (like exercising etc).

Should an alcoholic have to pay for their healthcare if they develop a a brain tumour?
Should an amateur football player have to pay for their healthcare if they get a broken leg?
Should a boxer have to pay for their healthcare if they get brain damage?
Should someone pay for their healthcare if they run out into the road and get knocked over?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5

L i b

19

Original post by rabbits_eat_tigers

I think the NHS should to a degree be half 'privatised' in the sense that those of whom who take a series of actions that they know will harm their body deliberatly should have to pay for their treatment.

No-one knows a series of actions will land them with a medical complaint that requires them to attend hospital. I'm sure we've all got anecdotal stories of relatives who've smoked, or drank to excess etc and lived well into their 90s, dying from unrelated things.

It is a matter of risk - and virtually everything we do carries a risk. Having a barbecue carries a risk of getting a burn on your hand, crossing a road carries a risk of being run over, playing most sports carries a risk of serious injury.

Im not talking about people who physically harm themselves because they should be considered as mentall ill however those of whom who drink and eat too much, then go to the NHS and get treatment for cancer and other possible illnesses are disgraceful.

And where's the line between a self-harmer and someone who eats too much because he or she is depressed?

Reply 6

Wildebeest

13

In one sense, I would like to see patients in A&E who are there merely due to drunkenness shouldering some of the costs (and let us not forget that some have been in there multiple times for the same reason), but the idea is entirely unfeasible. Hypothetically, how would such a system deal with a patient who had broken a bone falling over after consuming a large amount of alcohol? Many people sustain those injuries in the same way without having been drinking, and the question of accountability is, to my mind, far better left to the legal system rather than a hospital.

Reply 7

Installation

14

Original post by WelshBluebird

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12428765

What does everyone else feel about this?

I can see the point they are making, but to me this could be the start of a slippery slope if it happened.
I mean if drunk people have to pay, then why not make overweight people pay, or smokers, or people who injured themselves doing sport etc etc.

Plus, what about drunk people who end up in hospital through no fault of their own? Perhaps someone attacked them or whatever.

And more specifically, how would it be done? I assume they wouldn't make the person pay up before they are treated?

Or why not leave it at that? Everything has a slippery slope, but we can get those shoes with spikes in the bottom

Reply 8

jackhewitt92

screw that. we're not american- healthcare is free and fair.

i've taken a drunk mate to the ER (we were at the imperial medics bar at a hospital, daily mail got in somehow) who banged their head. no way in hell any real doctor would make them pay.

didn't help that we were in scrubs at that point, though.

Reply 9

Bagration

18

Btw they do shoulder the cost. It's called alcohol duty. Not sure how this was overlooked...

(Seems to be about 50p to the pint. http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_RatesCodesTools&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD1_029472

Not sure if that's true. Rate £ per hectolitre per cent of alcohol in the beer. £17.32 x 5 = 86.6

100 litres to pints = 175.97. 86.6 / 175.97 = £0.49. not sure if it should be that way round tho, cos 175.97 / 86.6 = £2.03, which sounds more accurate tbh... )

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 10

Pindar

16

I think the problem with this is that it'll end up with drunk people not going to A&E when they actually need urgent medical attention. This will lead to more unnecessary deaths.

Reply 11

Jeffroz

You're also forgetting that the amount of money the government makes from Alcohol tax outweighs the cost of alcohol damage. Same with smoking. I'm not sure the date of these figures, but I'm sure you can find some yourself if interested:

beer and cider £3.4bn
spirits £2.3 bn
Total Alcohol Tax Revenue:- £5.7bn
Aprox Total Cost:- £2.7bn
Total Profit:- £2bn

Although not the most credible source I'm sure with some effort could find some official figures: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090302034624AANoDtu

Reply 12

L i b

19

Original post by Installation

Or why not leave it at that? Everything has a slippery slope

Slippery slopes are when we concede sound principles to inherently unsound ones, in the hope that we can gain some (usually questionable) benefit out of them without getting the negatives. It's dodgy.

Reply 13

Sulfox

7

The only real way to make this work would be to increase tax on alcohol. I don't see that happening.

Reply 14

George Agdgdgwngo

17

Original post by WelshBluebird

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12428765

What does everyone else feel about this?

I can see the point they are making, but to me this could be the start of a slippery slope if it happened.
I mean if drunk people have to pay, then why not make overweight people pay, or smokers, or people who injured themselves doing sport etc etc.

Plus, what about drunk people who end up in hospital through no fault of their own? Perhaps someone attacked them or whatever.

And more specifically, how would it be done? I assume they wouldn't make the person pay up before they are treated?

This. I got stabbed in the hand with a glass after being stuck in the middle of a bar brawl which was nothing to do with me. Why should I have to pay just because I was intoxicated?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 15

Genocidal

19

As people have said. Unworkable, unfeasible and a bad road to go down. Today we charge drunks, tommorow we are charging fattys and smokers, a year down the line we have an almost completely private healthcare system which disadvantages the poor. Just no! We are not America!

Reply 16

hareandhound

1

Nope. Healthcare is payed for through ones taxes, I have no obligation to not use that healthcare, or put myself in a position where I won't use it.

Reply 17

hareandhound

1

Original post by rabbits_eat_tigers

I think the NHS should to a degree be half 'privatised' in the sense that those of whom who take a series of actions that they know will harm their body deliberatly should have to pay for their treatment. Im not talking about people who physically harm themselves because they should be considered as mentall ill however those of whom who drink and eat too much, then go to the NHS and get treatment for cancer and other possible illnesses are disgraceful. The tax payers money is stretched as it is and none should be given to these people. Services such as therapy and self-help groups should be subsidised by the government however the actually treatment should be payed for by the idiot who got themselves in that state to begin with. They should have to pay (with no interest added) the money back to the people in a series of payments, like a loan.....

The two biggest public services that tax money is spent on by the gov is NHS and pensions. In the imidiate sense, it may appear that people who smoke, drink and eat too much are a high cost as you see and hear about them needing treatment.

However even if you live a healthy life, your health will deteriorate into old age and you will not only be drawing a massive amount of public money for your pension, but also the increased NHS care that you'll need, especially if you end up with a degenerative condition. You will also have no earning power, giving nothing back.

Also, if you live a self indulgent lifestyle and die at 62 you won't get your pension, which balances it out somewhat.

Unhealthy people are far less of a drain, in strict overall money in money out terms, than healthy people. Also one shouldn't look at the NHS as an isolated institution insofar as one looks at it's finances, one should assess all the governments public spending before reaching conclusions on what people should pay for.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 18

Ben Butler

yep, they're wasting hospital time on someone who really is in serious trouble, not someone who deserve to be in the trouble they're in

I feel the same about people who make themselves deliberately fat, smoke, use drugs etc...

Reply 19

n00

14

Ms Watt said: "Anyone who has been abusing alcohol and can't stand on their feet and is admitted to hospital at the weekend should pay towards their treatment."

:rolleyes:

Can't see the disabled being to happy about those criteria. She's the chair of Scotland Patients Association ffs, clearly a complete moron.

(edited 13 years ago)

Drunk A&E patients 'should pay' for hospital treatment

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you