This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Bump.

Drinking is part of our culture. Drinking excessively is also part of our culture. As is thread necromancy.

Reply 22

kingme

17

free at point of use

/thread.

Reply 23

Mr Dangermouse

18

I wouldn't charge them directly, it takes away the founding principle of the NHS. A better way is to raise tax on alcohol with revenue going to the health service.

Reply 24

Viggo2790

1

A lot of people manage to miss the point of the welfare state, often completely.

Reply 25

KingGoonIan

19

First of all everyone already pays for their care as tax payers.

Second of all if drunks were made to pay for their care then not only should smokers and obese people be made to pay for their care but so should people who participate in sports when they are aware of the risks such as rugby players and horse riders. Therefore no they should not be made to pay for their care, health care should be free to all. People go to A&E to receive treatment, not to be judged.

If anyone disagrees please quote and reply because I would genuinely like to hear some counter arguments (that's why I unearthed this thread).

Reply 26

Erich Hartmann

13

Original post by Mr Dangermouse

I wouldn't charge them directly, it takes away the founding principle of the NHS. A better way is to raise tax on alcohol with revenue going to the health service.

That essentially means you are punishing responsible drinkers for the stupidity of the few.

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?

Could only be a good thing.

I do think that the fat and overweight should be made to pay as well especially if they are told to lose weight but continue to binge on chips and kebabs. This will be the next big endemic the NHS would need to deal with so best to start charging now.

Sports injuries isn't the same.

Drunks, alcoholism is rising in society, in reality high taxes on alcohol won't prevent it either. Making them pay? Well there are some things that they SHOULD pay, I think everyone found on a public highway in a drunken state and causing trouble should be sent to a hospital for alcohol poisoning treatments.... they should pay for the treatments, the ambulance or police vehicle that takes them there and any counselling after that that may be required.

How it should work? Probably on a pay after treatment basis and yes it should be very expensive.

Reply 27

Viggo2790

1

Original post by KingGoonIan

First of all everyone already pays for their care as tax payers.

Second of all if drunks were made to pay for their care then not only should smokers and obese people be made to pay for their care but so should people who participate in sports when they are aware of the risks such as rugby players and horse riders. Therefore no they should not be made to pay for their care, health care should be free to all. People go to A&E to receive treatment, not to be judged.

If anyone disagrees please quote and reply because I would genuinely like to hear some counter arguments (that's why I unearthed this thread).

This what I would've said if I was less tired. The welfare state is designed to care for those who are most in need of being cared for, namely those that can't necessarily afford to be cared for themselves.

Original post by Erich Hartmann

That essentially means you are punishing responsible drinkers for the stupidity of the few.

Sports injuries isn't the same.

How? Suppose you enter a 50/50 tackle, isn't that just as irresponsible as going on a night out?

I think everyone found on a public highway in a drunken state and causing trouble should be sent to a hospital for alcohol poisoning treatments.... they should pay for the treatments, the ambulance or police vehicle that takes them there and any counselling after that that may be required.

Large contradiction here. You pick them up, you treat them, demand money, if they don't have the money, then what? You sue them? Put them in jail, for an action that you did to them? You either unwittingly support the concept of the welfare state or think that it should be pay on point of treatment. What if then person is having a heart attack and they can't say whether they want to pay £10,000 for treatment or not? let them die, or demand money from them unfairly after you've helped them. Hmm..

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 28

Obadetona

14

I see nothing wrong with obese people and smokers paying. As long as there ailment is related of course.

Reply 29

kingme

17

Original post by Obadetona

I see nothing wrong with obese people and smokers paying. As long as there ailment is related of course.

they already pay (provided they pay tax), why should they have to pay more?

Reply 30

Bellissima

16

no because people who get drunk pay tax, both through the alcohol they buy and income tax etc.

they have the right to use the NHS! it is partly where their taxes go, afterall. f*cking tories.

as for alcoholics... i am fed up of people not understanding that it is a disease/disorder! people with it need to be treated! it's not just them going out to get pissed for a laugh... it is something they cannot control!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 31

Obadetona

14

Original post by kingme

they already pay (provided they pay tax), why should they have to pay more?

You should pay if you purposely cause yourself harm and make the government fix it. Why should everybody else pay for it?

Reply 32

kingme

17

Original post by Obadetona

You should pay if you purposely cause yourself harm and make the government fix it. Why should everybody else pay for it?

what is the point in having an NHS then? it's a slippery slope.

Personally I feel an all-encompassing system that will give good medical care to all is worth some people getting more than their money's worth from it.

And as for obese people and smokers, i'd rather pay proportionately less for what I get from the NHS than be morbidly obese or have COPD/cancer.

Reply 33

The_Internet

20

As an overweight guy, I don't see why the government shouldn't raise tax quite highly on unhealthy foods and subsidise the healthy ones. I'd also agree with the raising of alcohol and cigarette tax and giving that portion of the money to the NHS and not for other parts of government

Reply 34

34253

2

Erm drinkers pay 3x more in tax on the alcohol they drink than they cost the NHS... Those who abuse it the most also tend to not live long enough to draw their state pensions, which is another saving. It's always so easy for the government to start having a go at smokers and drinkers when the NHS is under strain because people don't think for themselves properly - but the fact is that without those people there would be no NHS.

Reply 35

Viggo2790

1

Original post by Obadetona

You should pay if you purposely cause yourself harm and make the government fix it. Why should everybody else pay for it?

Cor! Political masochists...if you want the government to fix something then you can always self-immolate.

Reply 36

BoxesAndBangles

16

Alcohol and cigarettes are actually taxed more than it costs to fix their consequences. Just saying. If they take away the extra tax on those items then fine. As long as sports, etc. are also made to pay. In other words, its not doable.

Reply 37

kingme

17

Original post by de_monies

As an overweight guy, I don't see why the government shouldn't raise tax quite highly on unhealthy foods and subsidise the healthy ones. I'd also agree with the raising of alcohol and cigarette tax and giving that portion of the money to the NHS and not for other parts of government

because there's LOADS of money (and yank money at that) in junk food. and anyways its impractical and nearly impossible to do. as for alcohol and cigarette tax, it's sky high already. though if the coalition was as serious about business as they said they were they would lower tax on alcohol sold from a bar.

Original post by Elipsis

Erm drinkers pay 3x more in tax on the alcohol they drink than they cost the NHS... Those who abuse it the most also tend to not live long enough to draw their state pensions, which is another saving. It's always so easy for the government to start having a go at smokers and drinkers when the NHS is under strain because people don't think for themselves properly - but the fact is that without those people there would be no NHS.

this is what does my head in - dave and co never get called on half the unsubstantiated **** they spout.

Terrible idea.

Make people pay an 'excess' I say like on insurance.

I would put being admitted to A&E as a standard fee of £120. Take the money back through peoples taxes and benefits, £10 a month for a year. It won't break the bank but then it will make people who end up in A&E every other weekend start thinking about it when they start accumulating the fees.

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

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you