UK: Time to Charge Binge Drinkers For Treatment

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by uptheirons!

 

But smokers and drinkers do pay more than those who don't drink or smoke because of the extraordinary level of tax they pay to the government on the products they use.

Someone binge drinking on a Friday doesn't pay enough in tax from that drink to cover their medical costs. However you need to move beyond the simple idea of the money and consider the other issues i raised, notably the clogging up of A&E on a Friday and Saturday night.

Fines for these people may cause them to look at their drinking habits and change them. They can still get drunk, even very drunk but not so drunk they end up in hospital. They could still do it if they like, they'll just have to pay the costs.

Originally posted by Freeborn

So why should they pay even more?

What about people who eat unhealthy diets and are prone to heart diseases etc?

As i stated earlier, i would only apply this specifically to binge drinkers who block up A&E, that is the big problem not so much the cost (although cost is a factor).

Originally posted by Freeborn
Or what about those who are unfit though lack of excercise etc, should we charge them more for any health issues that may be attributable to their life style?

Or is it just those that fit into your own brand of abusers who deserve all they get?

It's just binge drinkers because they are the only group who block up A&E ona regular basis, every Friday without fail. I don't smoke but if you do then go for it, i don't think you should be charged extra for the simple reason that you don't clog up A&E and the taxes you pay over a lifetime of smoking pretty much cover the costs of treatment. The same goes for the obese as they no doubt eat the bad foods which are subject to tax.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I wonder if one of your own little peccadillo's ever comes to cause you harm then you will still be so bitter and self-righteous.

Well again, smoking no problem with me, although i dont' do it myself, the same for obesity, the same for extreme sports. I even think that drugs addicts and alcoholics shouldn't have to pay because those are long term, addictive behaviors which have a really deep psychological cause and physical dependance.

Binge drinking on the other hand is easy to start and easy to stop. Also none of the other groups, again as already mentioned, don't clog up A&E on a regular basis. Yes they cost the NHS money but their conditions take a long time to start costing the system money and by that time they've covered the costs.

But to make it absolutely clear, money is the minor portion of this, the tying up of the A&E department and the paramedics, not to mention the police is the real issue.

reply to post by Freeborn


You will notice i included Obese people in my original reply...and i stated Eat less, move more....think that covers unhealthy diets and unfit people quite nicely....

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I would tend to agree with you about binge drinkers clogging up A&E on weekends etc and diverting resources away from other needy areas.

I was responding to someone who went a little bit further than that.

The problem seems to be in the procedure and it's prioritorisation and the lack of resource available.

Binge drinking in itself is a whole seperate topic and I could rant for ages about it and the governments and society's attitude and policy.

reply to post by uptheirons!


It must be nice to live the perfect lifestyle.

And self-righteous.

Zzzzzzzzz

Originally posted by uptheirons!
reply to post by Freeborn

 

You will notice i included Obese people in my original reply...and i stated Eat less, move more....think that covers unhealthy diets and unfit people quite nicely....

Ok now while i agree with you that being obese and smoking are definitely bad things that do burden the NHS, we have to remember that those burdens take a long time to come about and in that time the obese people and the smokers have paid more tax than others into the system and so i have no problem with them. The larger point is that neither group clogs up A&E so in the end i think it's a rather moot point.

If we start saying that long term lifestyle choices should lead to you paying more then we will quickly descend into a private system with only a few diseases treated by the NHS. Binge drinking, unlike alcoholism or smoking is not the result of addictive behavior and that is why it is different along with the fact it clogs up hospitals, causing nurses, doctors, paramedics and others to be horribly over worked.

reply to post by Freeborn


Yeah sorry man i know you were replying to someone else but i found your post useful to make my position more clear, hope you don't mind

reply to post by Freeborn


I'm not claiming my lifestyle is perfect...far from it, but if someone wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle and doesn't try to improve their own health, then why should I as a taxpayer have to help pay for them when that lifestyle comes back to bite them on the arse?

If you have issues with me telling people to stop being so bloody lazy or dependent on substances, and to actually try and be a bit healthier then there's nothing i can do about that...but don't try making out that it's a bad thing to suggest being healthier..

Also, maybe A+E wouldn't be so crowded if the money spent on treating other chronic conditions caused by unhealthy lifestyles was used to fund extra staff and equipment in A+E...

I do pay for treatment through National Insurance and tax on everything I touch in this country so get off your high horse. I have been in Casualty twice drunk, one of which I was attacked the other because I slipped on an icy road an did my ankle in. In your mind does that mean I should have paid for this even though I am a healthy male aged 30 years and havent been to the doctors in three years, do not take any medication and I pay on average £1200 a month income and NI tax before I pay tax on food, diesel etc. I think I pay enough to be honest and if I had the choice I would forgo NI Payments and pay for private health care as I already pay for a pension. Can you say the same

I do pay for treatment through National Insurance and tax on everything I touch in this country so get off your high horse. I have been in Casualty twice drunk, one of which I was attacked the other because I slipped on an icy road an did my ankle in. In your mind does that mean I should have paid for this even though I am a healthy male aged 30 years and havent been to the doctors in three years, do not take any medication and I pay on average £1200 a month income and NI tax before I pay tax on food, diesel etc. I think I pay enough to be honest and if I had the choice I would forgo NI Payments and pay for private health care as I already pay for a pension. Can you say the same

Double Post

[edit on 5/7/10 by On the level]

reply to post by uptheirons!


As has already been pointed out those with health issues due to lifestyle choices are normally as a result of mis-use over a number of years and will have more than contributed to the treatment they recieve.

People are getting sick of the nanny state and it's pompous, over bearing, dictatorial ramblings and dictates.

Unfortunately your posts sound very much along the same lines.

reply to post by On the level


If the attack was not your fault then no you absolutely should not have to pay, as for slipping because you were drunk, it depends on what you mean by drunk. A few drinks can make you drunk without being counted as a binge, i'm talking about the people who down a bottle of vodka because they go out, then a load of shots, then whatever else and end up in casuality vomiting, screaming at people, needing their stomach pumped etc.

These are the problem people that clog up A&E, the people that need fining to teach them a lesson, because maybe if this was in palce people may try and calm it down a little. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to stop anyone drinking, if they want to do it then fine, go ahead and drink 30 units in a night but do not expect others to stand by as you create chaos in A&E on a regular basis.

As already stated i think a 3 strikes approach would be good. The first time you do it then you don't pay, the second time maybe some form of punishment but nothing major, a couple hours community service maybe, the third time and any time after it's up to you to pay.

reply to post by Freeborn


Once again...I don't care how you or anyone else lives their lifestyle...but if it means my money is spent sorting out a problem they could have avoided but didn't and instead have neglected their own health for years then why should they not pay for it?...and more impotantly why should I and every other taxpayer pay for it?...

put it this way...if you have a car, don't get it serviced, don't change the oil, thrash the arse off it and generally don't look after it....and it breaks down...do you then expect everyone else to pay to get it fixed?

reply to post by uptheirons!


I hate to tell you this but the money smokers payon tax has probably helped you or someone you know. The last figures i read were saying that the NHS spends roughly 2 billion on smoking related disease and the tax from cigarrettes was around 7 billion. That's a 5 billion surplus right there.

As for obese people, i can't find the tax income on chocolate biscuits but i bet they're paying their way

Just to reiterate i am neither a smoker or obese so no axe to grind here i think you're just missing the point. It's more about the clogging up of the A&E departments i'm annoyed about. The fines are simply a form of punishment and a way to dissaude people from doing it again.

The simple answer to this is Yes.

Of course, treatment needs to be delivered no matter who, up front.

We have a system that means we can charge other EU countries and foreign nationals for treatment on the HNS, so it should not be too differcult to implement this, but then this would mean collecting and getting information from people!

There would need to be a defination of when someone would be charged as I wonder how many of us have not at one time or another, drunk too much.

I saw some posts about this being the thin end of the wedge, and if you go down this route, what about other things and I would ask if the OP is happy for those to be discussed under this thread as it is outside the strict bounds of the title of this thread.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


i agree with your concept of fining drunks so they don't do it again, rather than as a money making tool, but review what i said in a previous post about the way the money in a NHS trust is spent and how long term conditions can affect A+E indirectly...

also it would be nice to see the tax from cigarettes and drink being spent on the NHS, but i doubt it's been funneled there...the money goes to the government and they spend it on everything...including expense accounts, quango's, procurement committees and overpriced projects...

What i am suggesting would mean the money goes direct to the NHS trust supplying the treatment, so they can choose where it gets spent...not some rich MP who wants a new moat...

Create a problem, wait for the reaction, then offer the solution.......Yep that's what they are doing !!!


"Binge drinking" lol.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

I saw some posts about this being the thin end of the wedge, and if you go down this route, what about other things and I would ask if the OP is happy for those to be discussed under this thread as it is outside the strict bounds of the title of this thread.

Please read the thread in full because those issues have already been adressed by myself and others. It's only a two page thread atm so you can find the replies easily. If it were 11 pages long i wouldn't expect you to dig through it.

reply to post by uptheirons!


NHS Trusts are pretty awful, they are basically privately run instead of government run and as such there is a ton of waste because when private managers have access to government funds they tend to spend them on frivelous things. They are also people who often have no knowledge of medicine, they're just business graduates and so they don't know what they're managing.

But that's a whole other thread.

reply to post by uptheirons!


So if there is a 5 billion surplus provided by smokers which is not being directed into the NHS then surely the government is guilty of mis-appropriating funds and they are the one's who you should direct your anger at, not the very people who are the source of the surplus!