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

wigglebeena

Habitual irresponsible p*ssheads are more likely to cost insurance co.s in claims, e.g. setting the chip-pan on fire while rata*sed.. I don't think it's unreasonable for the companies to want to know about it in advance and charge them more than me in premiums.

Wine_of_the_World

Wouldnt it be a better idea if you had to pay a small charge each time you acessed the health service. Maybe only 5 or 10 pounds, but enough to make people think "Do I really need to see the doctor / go to A and E?"

I dont think people drunk should have to pay to use A and E, but I DO think that anyone agressive should be refused treatment and have to leave A and E.

Emy1501

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Are they?

I was unaware. If they are, presumably they are claiming from an insurance company?
Slightly different to the !!!!less doleites who spend all their spare income on fags, booze and sky. The courts can't even get them to pay up their fines let alone a hospital.

(Yes I know I'm generalising but you get the picture)

£566 if you attend hospital after a motor accident and £712 if you go in an ambulance. In fairness not sure of the difference especially for the motorist who caused the accident. between not being able to drive properly and getting drunk and hurting yourself. Both were an accident.

Pretty much everyone I know at sometime has got drunk to the point of not remembering anything. If they have an accident why they should they pay for an accident? If its such a problem then why not ban alcohol? Why not charge everyone who ends up in hospital because of their own negligence. What about people who undertake dangerous sports? What about those who are not drunk but go to AE because of their own stupidity?

The idea is just a desperate way of getting more money for the NHS. Lets pick on people who are just having some fun and enjoying themselves in way which has been encouraged in this country for years.

Is there any mention of the bars or clubs that are selling the alcohol footing the bill?

Generali

Emy1501 wrote: »

£566 if you attend hospital after a motor accident and £712 if you go in an ambulance. In fairness not sure of the difference especially for the motorist who caused the accident. between not being able to drive properly and getting drunk and hurting yourself. Both were an accident.

Pretty much everyone I know at sometime has got drunk to the point of not remembering anything. If they have an accident why they should they pay for an accident? If its such a problem then why not ban alcohol? Why not charge everyone who ends up in hospital because of their own negligence. What about people who undertake dangerous sports? What about those who are not drunk but go to AE because of their own stupidity?

The idea is just a desperate way of getting more money for the NHS. Lets pick on people who are just having some fun and enjoying themselves in way which has been encouraged in this country for years.

Is there any mention of the bars or clubs that are selling the alcohol footing the bill?

It is a criminal offence to serve someone with alcohol who is drunk in the UK AIUI. It's just that the law isn't imposed.

sss555s

If there was no tax on booze and tobacco then they more than likely would have been banned years ago.

They are probably having to ration the NHS because of less revenue created by the above because of the recession.

It's a two way street.

misskool

Emy1501 wrote: »

Is there any mention of the bars or clubs that are selling the alcohol footing the bill?

That's just a way of absolving the responsibility from yourself. If you're old enough to drink then you should be old enough to be responsible for your own actions and behaviour. Why punish people who are providing you with a venue for your entertainment?

Also, the new licensing laws mean that bars and pubs/clubs get a large fine if they continue to serve someone they know are drunk. It's easy to get around that, I know people who have been refused service but then got their mates to buy them a drink. It was their choice to continue drinking, why should the establishment have to pay?

kabayiri

Wine_of_the_World wrote: »

Wouldnt it be a better idea if you had to pay a small charge each time you acessed the health service. Maybe only 5 or 10 pounds, but enough to make people think "Do I really need to see the doctor / go to A and E?"

Much more likely situation is "welcome to the era of data profiling".

Large amounts of data gathered about yourself and your activities will eventually influence the cost of you living in our society.

Habitual user of A&E? It will all be on your record. Cross-correlated with treatment of alcohol related injury? Yep, it will all be there. Been refused insurance for drink driving in the past? Just another hop to a different database.

And the amazing thing about all this? The data to support all these small changes will be trumpeted and used with much relish by governments in various colours to herald a new age. The horse-whispering consultants will promise much potential cost saving for a government desperate for financial solutions.

This might come at a personal privacy cost however.

Emy1501

misskool wrote: »

That's just a way of absolving the responsibility from yourself. If you're old enough to drink then you should be old enough to be responsible for your own actions and behaviour. Why punish people who are providing you with a venue for your entertainment?

Also, the new licensing laws mean that bars and pubs/clubs get a large fine if they continue to serve someone they know are drunk. It's easy to get around that, I know people who have been refused service but then got their mates to buy them a drink. It was their choice to continue drinking, why should the establishment have to pay?

Everytime I go to my local bar the first thing they ask when you buy a spirit is thats a double is it? You have to say no everytime. Some bars in London do not even serve single shots. Go out sober in any bar and 90% of the people around you will be very drunk. Are you suggesting all the people are getting friends who are often as drunk as them to buy the drinks? I suspect the argument is anyone over the drink drive limit is drunk. Therefore anyone who has a drink in a bar gets drunk falls over goes to hospital should pay £500+. What a load rubbish. As I say if the government are worried about the cost of people getting drunk then ban drinking or add more tax onto drink to cover the cost. Everyone who drinks will have been drunk enough to fall over and injury themselves at sometime.

If you do not drink fair enough but if you do don't tell me you have never been drunk.

blueboy43

misskool wrote: »

That's just a way of absolving the responsibility from yourself. If you're old enough to drink then you should be old enough to be responsible for your own actions and behaviour. Why punish people who are providing you with a venue for your entertainment?

Also, the new licensing laws mean that bars and pubs/clubs get a large fine if they continue to serve someone they know are drunk. It's easy to get around that, I know people who have been refused service but then got their mates to buy them a drink. It was their choice to continue drinking, why should the establishment have to pay?

because in many city centre drinking bars, they are as culpable as their patrons. The analogy that comes to mind is drug dealers and users.
In 28 years of going out, I have never seen anyone refused to be served because they are drunk.

misskool

Emy1501 wrote: »

Everytime I go to my local bar the first thing they ask when you buy a spirit is thats a double is it? You have to say no everytime. Some bars in London do not even serve single shots. Go out sober in any bar and 90% of the people around you will be very drunk. Are you suggesting all the people are getting friends who are often as drunk as them to buy the drinks? I suspect the argument is anyone over the drink drive limit is drunk. Therefore anyone who has a drink in a bar gets drunk falls over goes to hospital should pay £500+. What a load rubbish. As I say if the government are worried about the cost of people getting drunk then ban drinking or add more tax onto drink to cover the cost. Everyone who drinks will have been drunk enough to fall over and injury themselves at sometime.

If you do not drink fair enough but if you do don't tell me you have never been drunk.

That's their job, to sell you alcohol. it's called upselling. it's like the argos man asking you if you want an extended warranty for the £4.99 toaster that you're about to buy. You can say no. They should be able to sell you single shots.

Of course I've been drunk. However, I've not drunk so much as to requiring a&e, I've never been so drunk that I've failed to see where I was walking and therefore causing an accident. I'm personally responsible for getting to my state of mind. I don't see why the bar that is selling me alcohol footing the bill to pay for a&e.

Can you explain why bars are more culpable than the patrons?