melthebell Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Would make far more sense to charge people who have to be taken to hospital because they are too drunk, a minimum of £100. i like that idea, much fairer than make EVERYBODY pay more for their booze just cos of a few idiots why should i have to pay more for my beer on a weekend?, i drink sensibly, never end up having to go to hospital cos of it. if its drink related then they could be charged.....a handling fee maybe lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 But what about health care being 'free at the point of provision'? Perhaps everybody should be obliged to obtain medical insurance (through a state-run scheme or from a private company) and everybody should be given a bill which they would take to their insurers? It's either 'free at the point of provision' or 'everybody gets a bill'. You can't have it both ways. yes you can, they obviously know when somebodys in drunk and what injuries are caused by drink, they can put something in place to charge idiots for hospital time people already get charged for ambulance trips for some reasons i believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 the politicians are not saying that, why are you lying? So when is the Palace of Westminster doing away with its taxpayer subsidised bars/pubs and restaurants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So when is the Palace of Westminster doing away with its taxpayer subsidised bars/pubs and restaurants? i dont know and dont particularly care and is totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 yes you can, they obviously know when somebodys in drunk and what injuries are caused by drink, they can put something in place to charge idiots for hospital time people already get charged for ambulance trips for some reasons i believe You open a whole can of worms with that one.. because the argument goes.. Well what about those who eat too much? What about those who smoke? What about those who participate in obviously dangerous sports and get injured? etc etc... They're all avoidable choice driven costs to the NHS, why should drinking be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You open a whole can of worms with that one.. because the argument goes.. Well what about those who eat too much? What about those who smoke? What about those who participate in obviously dangerous sports and get injured? etc etc... They're all avoidable choice driven costs to the NHS, why should drinking be any different? like i said tho most of us can drink AND not end up in casualty, theres a dividing line. apart from dangerous sports the rest are long term health problems NOT a quick trip to casualty im sure if there was a "casualty handling charge" or someathing then people might think twice before having too much? then again idiots dont think anyway so...... its about learning your limits, i know i can drink 8 pints and not fall down a flight of steps or even get a hangover, but i know if i have 9,10,11 then im heading for both of those scenarios oh and another point......the smokers, eaters, extreme sports people arent in the firing line for a sudden price hike cos of those that cant moderate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Alcohol should not be taxed, we need a free-market. If alcohol weren't taxed then there'd be a lot more people in hospital and a lot less revenue i.e. more expenditure and less income for the NHS. That money would have to come from somewhere. It's better to reduce the availability of alcohol by making it more expensive. Admittedly that makes it more expensive for us all but then the reduction in crime and other anti-social behaviour would be of benefit to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If alcohol weren't taxed then there'd be a lot more people in hospital and a lot less revenue i.e. more expenditure and less income for the NHS. That money would have to come from somewhere. Not necessarily. Besides, alcohol money ain't set aside for treating alcoholics. It's better to reduce the availability of alcohol by making it more expensive. Admittedly that makes it more expensive for us all but then the reduction in crime and other anti-social behaviour would be of benefit to everyone. You don't reduce the availability though, the black market steps up to meet demand. We have prohibition through price already. It's easier to get duty free booze than it is to get duty free fags nowadays. Putting the price up only increases crime. Last year 5 men were killed in an explosion, only the other week a girl in Sheffield was supposedly blinded. Most people I know drink at home before they go down town and just have a couple in town now, before people could afford to go down town and buy pub beer all night. Beer is ridiculously expensive nowadays and it is practically all tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 like i said tho most of us can drink AND not end up in casualty, theres a dividing line. apart from dangerous sports the rest are long term health problems NOT a quick trip to casualty im sure if there was a "casualty handling charge" or someathing then people might think twice before having too much? then again idiots dont think anyway so...... its about learning your limits, i know i can drink 8 pints and not fall down a flight of steps or even get a hangover, but i know if i have 9,10,11 then im heading for both of those scenarios oh and another point......the smokers, eaters, extreme sports people arent in the firing line for a sudden price hike cos of those that cant moderate It is about learning your limits I agree, but lots haven't. Between midnight and 5am, 70% of A+E admissions are alcohol related. I'm not sure that extreme sports or overeating has the same impact on the NHS (and I think smokers definitely already contribute plenty to their eventual healthcare needs through the taxes on tobacco) Rather than place additional tax on alcohol, I'd get rid of the HVVDEs - make it a licence requirement in town centres after 7pm (or whatever) to provide table service only. That would slow the idiots down, have minimal impact on those who don't binge, allow the licensee to fulfil his/her legal obligation to assess the intoxication levels of people they serve and have no impact on people who have a bottle of wine at home. If only the HVVDE companies didn't have such an influential impact on this, and previous, governments, we might have already seen something like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I like how this is being pressented as some kind of new problem. The English have been drunkards since the beginning of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.