New Year, NHS rationing, should drunks be charged for admissions?

zygurat789

How about a £10 admission fee for A & E?

misskool

dopester wrote: »

The scissors needs to be taken to both sides of the cost equation in my opinion. £532 per admission for acute alcohol intoxication!

Deterrent + treatment costs down anyway. My brother, a teenager at the time, once went to hospital with acute alcohol intoxication and spent 3 nights in a hospital bed... I can see how that could add up to a bit of money - but mostly it was the bed / drip.

I spent a few hours with a relative this year in A&E, who after quite a few drinks, thought it would be a great idea to try moving a heavy bookcase by themselves - but that was an X-ray and bandaging up.

I'm convinced it could be done for less than £532. Maybe the NHS should requisition a suitable empty building near each hospital, fill it with beds, and make it for acute alcohol admissions... not staffed by high-trained nurses but those who have been given specific training in how to treat such conditions. Or take an empty building and turn it over to the private sector, who could say do it for £132 per admission.

Capital costs and overheads need to accounted for. Hospitals as a building are expensive, they need to be cleaned constantly and you need to have qualified people working. If you have a dedicated building as you prescribe, it will cost more as there will be start up cost involved.

Private hospital care will cost more, it may be a nice dream to think that it won't but it does.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

zygurat789 wrote: »

How about a £10 admission fee for A & E?

Is that stalls or circle??

zygurat789

Quote:
Originally Posted by zygurat789
How about a £10 admission fee for A & E?


Is that stalls or circle??

A & E not theatre

jojo1964

NowWhat wrote: »

YES - in a word.

Fair enough thats a high charge too.

These drunks are sitting there expecting free treatment for their self-inflicted injuries - when there isnt enough "money in the pot" for genuine health problems - so without a doubt - charge them through the nose and then some. Personally - I'd hand them a bill for £1,000 on the spot and say "no pay = no get" - even if all they required was a few sticking plasters. They are also "blocking the way" for people with genuine health problems and causing them to have to wait unnecessarily for treatment. I wouldnt even "turn a hair" if they ended up sitting there literally dying right in front of me from their self-inflicted injuries - I would treat the person who came before them in the queue at Casualty (even if it was for a minor ailment - but one that they hadnt caused themselves) and take the view that the "drunk" had caused their own death - so why should I have any feelings about it? - and I wouldnt in all honesty.

After all - if they carry on boozing for England/Scotland/Wales/ireland - then they will eventually have other health problems because of it and WE will be expected to pay out to bail them out by providing the healthcare they wouldnt need in the first place if they had lived a healthier/more responsible lifestyle.:mad:

What genuine health problems specifically, its called Accident and Emergency for a reason, now most accidents and emergencies are avoidable, so where do you draw the line, what about refusing to treat women beaten by their partners, they probably knew they were violent so its their fault they need treatment, the woman raped walking home alone, she knew the risks walking home alone, lets ban her from treatment, i think im on to something, i have figured out how to cut NHS costs drastically, no treatment for the kid who fell out of the tree and broke his arm, stupid boy, he knew the risks, ban him, this should free up enough money for those who cannot afford IVF privately to recieve it free on the NHS, conveniently forgetting the cost of bringing up children. oh how we have had our priorities wrong.

vivatifosi

zygurat789 wrote: »

Absolutely no way should elective surgery be free.
Most breast enlargements are private aren't they?

I do know someone who had extremely asymmetrical breasts (ie one was big and one was, well, non-existent). They did get a single implant on the NHS. Personally I didn't have a problem with that as it did transform their life and helped their self confidence, but the question is to what extent should these things be funded, I don't know the answer. I just thought it was an interesting and timely New Years Eve dilemma.

StevieJ

NowWhat wrote: »

YES - in a word.
I would treat the person who came before them in the queue at Casualty (even if it was for a minor ailment - but one that they hadnt caused themselves) and take the view that the "drunk" had caused their own death - so why should I have any feelings about it? - and I wouldnt in all honesty.

So you would treat someone who shouldn't even be in casualty and ignore someone who may have been out for a quiet night and a few beers but ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time :rolleyes:

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I do know someone who had extremely asymmetrical breasts (ie one was big and one was, well, non-existent). They did get a single implant on the NHS. Personally I didn't have a problem with that as it did transform their life and helped their self confidence, but the question is to what extent should these things be funded, I don't know the answer. I just thought it was an interesting and timely New Years Eve dilemma.

Sure, I agree, an extreme asymetry is going to be ''important''. However its worth noting that IIRC 95% of women are asymetrically endowed. If IIRC I think that 50% of women have a larger right boob, 45% a larger left. Deciding what is ''normal'' asymetry and what is extreme may be subjective? I think something that made a difference in cup size would be ''extreme''.

Jomo

vivatifosi wrote: »

I do know someone who had extremely asymmetrical breasts (ie one was big and one was, well, non-existent). They did get a single implant on the NHS. Personally I didn't have a problem with that as it did transform their life and helped their self confidence, but the question is to what extent should these things be funded, I don't know the answer. I just thought it was an interesting and timely New Years Eve dilemma.

My boyfriend has witnessed ladies with perfectly sized breasts have enlargements performed by the NHS, all it takes is a good actress to claim how she lacks confidence because of her oh so small breasts!

And another thing to think about, implants are supposed to be replaced after about 10 years of the original operation, this isn't pointed out by private clinics prior to operating and it is probably overlooked by most wanting the procedure...and guess who ends up forking out for this operation...? Yes we do!!

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

I think something that made a difference in cup size would be ''extreme''.

More than two cup sizes difference... AIUI they also looked at making them smaller, but its cheaper to make one bigger than make the other smaller. Anyone who needs just one implant is going to be pretty lopsided.