BINGE DRINKING stopped?

[Location114]

Right so basically me and the OH was talking this morning about binge drinking and we had a theory to cut it its not fool proof but we just wondered what others thought.

 

Right firstly DONT increase the price of alcohol per unit because this just persecutes responsible drinkers.

Secondly and this is the important one if people need medical help because of excess alcohol ie a stomach pump etc NO FREE NHS make them pay for it.

Now we do understand this has the potential to persecute responsible drinkers but on balance it seems that all possible theorys to get around the issue will harm responsible drinkers in some way?

 

So to cut a long story short our question is Should it be that anyone admitted to hospital via a drink related incident should have to pay NHS fees? Do you think it would be a good detterant? What are the advantages and problems on this theory? If it was a national vote would you vote in or out?

[pattricia]

They should have to pay , but will they pay ? This type of drinker, and drug taker, held the queue up in A & E while my very ill mother (with a chest infection) had to wait.

[Paul2412]

They should pay, same with junkies who come in the hospital time and time again. Treat them and then invoice them. If they don't pay, send the bailiffs round.

[HeadingNorth]

Bailiffs won't help with people who don't have the money; and I suspect, certainly with drug addicts and quite likely with drunkards, that they won't.

 

The alternative, of demanding money up front, is little better. You're effectively asking doctors and nurses to go against their entire ethos and training, and refuse treatment to somebody if they roll up without any money. Regardless of whether, morally, it's a good or a bad idea, I don't think it is practical.

[Guest sibon]

They should pay, same with junkies who come in the hospital time and time again. Treat them and then invoice them. If they don't pay, send the bailiffs round.

 

Are there any other groups that you would like to include in this scheme?

 

Smokers?

Car drivers?

Pedestrians? (They could have stayed in).

Climbers?

Footballers?

 

We all make choices and some of them sometimes result in hospital treatment. Of course, we could just run the NHS on the basis of blind prejudice instead.

[Paul2412]

Are there any other groups that you would like to include in this scheme?

 

Smokers?

Car drivers?

Pedestrians? (They could have stayed in).

Climbers?

Footballers?

 

We all make choices and some of them sometimes result in hospital treatment. Of course, we could just run the NHS on the basis of blind prejudice instead.

 

Yeah, OK. Let's compare the guy/girl who spends all day drinking alcohol, drinking until they collapse or decide to fight someone with someone who has been in a car accident.

 

Are you happy that your paying for someone to get so off their head each week that they take up a bed which a relative of yours might desperately need some day?

[HeadingNorth]

Yeah, OK. Let's compare the guy/girl who spends all day drinking alcohol, drinking until they collapse or decide to fight someone with someone who has been in a car accident.

 

 

Sarcasm is not an argument. Both cases involve someone who chose to do a potentially dangerous activity and was hurt as a consequence. Why will you condemn the one but not the other?

[Guest sibon]

Yeah, OK. Let's compare the guy/girl who spends all day drinking alcohol, drinking until they collapse or decide to fight someone with someone who has been in a car accident.

 

Are you happy that your paying for someone to get so off their head each week that they take up a bed which a relative of yours might desperately need some day?

 

Let's compare them. Would you like to distinguish between car accidents at the hospital? Some accidents are just that, accidents. Others are caused by reckless or careless or simply poor driving.

 

Maybe the A and E team should devise a questionnaire to make sure that they only treat the genuine accidents. Those injured because of poor driving could be charged along with the drinkers and junkies.

 

Maybe you would like to produce a list of socially acceptable activities that it is ok to injure yourself doing. Then we can let the NHS know.

[DragonofAna]

Agree with HeadingNorth.

 

I do not drink alcohol at all and even when I did, when I was much younger, I never drank that much I needed hospital treatment.

 

What begins as a small restriction on health treatment could grow out of proportion - for the good of whomever. You start banning one group, or charging them, and if it works (which I doubt it will), you decide to try the same with the next group, and before you know it - there is no NHS.

[Paul2412]

Let's compare them. Would you like to distinguish between car accidents at the hospital? Some accidents are just that, accidents. Others are caused by reckless or careless or simply poor driving.

 

Maybe the A and E team should devise a questionnaire to make sure that they only treat the genuine accidents. Those injured because of poor driving could be charged along with the drinkers and junkies.

 

Maybe you would like to produce a list of socially acceptable activities that it is ok to injure yourself doing. Then we can let the NHS know.

 

A valid point.

 

The answer is better record keeping. People who persistently end up in hospital through drink or drugs are refused treatment until they pay for it.

 

An example would be a liver transplant. Why should someone with a genuine condition have to wait because some idiot who has drunk themselves into a state needs one as well?