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

WhiteThierry

captainhaggis wrote: »

People who are repeatedly in hospital using valuable resources because of their inability to enjoy alcohol responsibly don't deserve to be treated.

I love a drink and I enjoy a good get-together with mates. I've been so wasted before that I've forgotten the first 20 years of my life. But I've never been in hospital because of it.

We've got people in this country being denied life saving medication by NICE because of budget cuts.....

if we refuse to treat/make them pay, then we should cut tax on alcohol, which will lead to greater alcohol consumption, which will lead to more accide.... you get the picture.

theres a million things we pay taxes for that we dont agree. eg my taxes pay for people to be treated through childbirth, i dont have kids or ever want them, but i have to pay for other people to give birth to monsters who will probably be breaking into my house in 15 years, not fair is it? but i grin and bear the tax burden and wouldn't want it any other way.

zygurat789

baby_boomer wrote: »

Why not require all drunks admitted to NHS casualty to have to declare that on future car and household insurance applications?

That could create some savings for the rest of us as insurers discriminate accordingly.

And also relieve some of the pressure on A&E departments as friends and family treat less serious incidents at home.

While reintroducing the outmoded concept that we should in some way be responsible for our actions :rolleyes:

This is really the crux of this and most other similarlly hotly debated questions.
How to make people responsible for their actions.
Having seen how humans behave I have come to the conclusion that nothing will improve until there are some very big sticks waiting to beat them, and these sticks must be targetted at the individual or else why should that individual conform to the way of society instead of (as he/she sees it) enjoying themselves.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

That slippery slope again :eek:

Is anything not ona slope, one way or another though?

I can say this, despite having a very lucky life now, for which I am extremely grateful, and have fought hard far, there is little doubt that 5 yrs ago its an option I would have given serious cnsideration too: and I don't see that as heinous. I have a DNR for myself, thats my choice....and based not necessarily on medical reasoning: the majoirty of my adult life has been a slog against this body, I don't want to start from scratch again, and to an extent consideration about that would put my nearest and dearest through is present, but not, I'm afraid, overriding for me.:o DH OTOH is totally against not fighting 100% of the time, and would want to be given every single chance possible come what may.

I think that, like wills, retirement planning and other importnat constructs of society we need to, as individuials, give this more thought, and as society we need to make it that individuals have to give some thought to: future planning, in all respects.

baby_boomer

Deleted_User wrote: »

The big drain on the NHS is going to be old people.

Relating this to the OP.

None of us can choose not to be old.

We can all choose whether to be drunk and incapable or sober.

Why should we not accept the consequences of that choice if it makes us a burden on the body politic?

wigglebeena

baby_boomer wrote: »

Why not require all drunks admitted to NHS casualty to have to declare that on future car and household insurance applications?

I think that's a stroke of blimmin' genius. Add in university and job applications.

LilacPixie

When you say 'drunk' are you talking about the incapable ones who pee themselves andcan't stand/have alcohol poisoning or those who happen to have a mishap while under the influence?

The reason I ask is about 6 years ago I was on a night out, had 3-4 glasses of wine so was well over drive limit but not falling about drunk. A truely drunk (3 times limit) driver put his car in 1st gear not reverse and shot forward into a pedestrian zone and knocked me on my !!!. I was ok bruising, 3 cracked ribs and split head, concussion. I did get taken to A&E in an ambulance because well I was hurt and unconsious for a few mins, the police did request one.

I guess what I am asking is where is the line drawn?? I was certainly not sober but I was not doing something stupid unless you count walking in a pedestrian zone stupid. IMO alcohol had no baring on my accident from my side but obviously it was due to the driver.

He got a 30 month ban BTW, second offence. Should of been life.

StevieJ

baby_boomer wrote: »

Why not go for x2 the current drink driving limit? That would allow for people having a good time but not binge drinking (which excludes your case).
r.

What planet are you from

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Smoking costs the NHS several billion pounds a year. Tax on tobacco raises 11 billion a year though, so smokers subsidise the healthy.

Same thing with drinkers. Alcohol duty and tax raise around 20 billion, alcohol related disease only costs a few billion.

Drinkers already pay for their own health care, with more than enough left over to pay for the cost of Policing town centres, and theres still billions left to subsidise everone else.

Why make them pay twice?

baby_boomer

StevieJ wrote: »

What planet are you from

The limit can be debated at which point admission to NHS casualty should cost you re future insurance premiums.

What about 4 pints / 1.3 bottles of wine?

Or 6 pints / 2 bottles of wine?

Or 9 pints / 3 bottles of wine?

And added points for drugs in the bloodstream?

It's an interesting day to be debating this issue :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Smoking costs the NHS several billion pounds a year. Tax on tobacco raises 11 billion a year though, so smokers subsidise the healthy.

Same thing with drinkers. Alcohol duty and tax raise around 20 billion, alcohol related disease only costs a few billion.

Drinkers already pay for their own health care, with more than enough left over to pay for the cost of Policing town centres, and theres still billions left to subsidise everone else.

Why make them pay twice?

I Still don't see why anyone should pay twice.

In fact, the more they drink, the more they've paid already.

Don't see the logic in babyboomers post above charging drinkers by the amount they've drunk, unless drinkers can then walk into wards full of teetotallers and demand a rebate from them as they are using our contributions....