I know that this sounds very right wing but i think that if you can't control how much you drink at the weekend, so much so that end up in such a state that the emergency services have do be called out, you should pay for your treatment!

What do other people think?

yeh i agree. i never require them so i couldnt agree more!

well if they pay taxes they already do! lol

It's a great idea in theory, but has wider implications...

How far would you take it? Smokers paying for lung cancer treatment and athsma medicines for their local communities? Fat people paying for heart disease and cancer treatment? Runners and sports payers paying for knee operations?

Or what about if you have to dial 999 because you've had an accident? How do you prove it was an accident? Were you being reckless? Could it have been prevented?

And the obese. And smokers.
And anyone taking part in a dangerous sport.

And any at fault car driver in an accident.

Oh and anyone who trips, or injures themselves whilst cooking or doing diy.

Sod it, lets make everyone pay.

All we need is a tax, now what shall we call it...

I know, national insurance, what a cracking idea.

how about while where at it charge

drug addicts thats self inflicted
joyriders
smokers
those who climb mountains or those who patake in dangrous sports
certain women who use abortion as a form of contraception

im sure theres other things they could charge extra for

The trouble is, that could be applied to any situation!

It's like saying people who can't control their temper should have to pay for the emergency services in cases of domestic violence, or that people who drive dangerously and have an accident should be made to pay.

We all pay tax, and we all need the services available for all sorts of different situations. I have never needed an ambulance when I have been out drinking, or for any other reason, but would like to think I am allowed to call an ambuance whenever I should need one, having already paid for it through my tax.

edit: wasn't very quick there, Jbee, cyclone and panda all got in there first!

Originally posted by panda79
certain women who use abortion as a form of contraception


Did anyone else find this remark offensive? Contraception is never 100 per cent full proof, yet certain men seem to think the responsibility lies totally with the female of the species, and then make remarks like this when it all goes wrong.

Go back to your cave Panda. And consider a vasectomy while you're at it.

Originally posted by JBee
Did anyone else find this remark offensive? Contraception is never 100 per cent full proof, yet certain men seem to think the responsibility lies totally with the female of the species, and then make remarks like this when it all goes wrong.

Go back to your cave Panda. And consider a vasectomy while you're at it.

thats a bit harsh as well as been offensive maybe you should learn to control your temper before you type anything

Originally posted by JBee
Did anyone else find this remark offensive? Contraception is never 100 per cent full proof, yet certain men seem to think the responsibility lies totally with the female of the species, and then make remarks like this when it all goes wrong.

Go back to your cave Panda. And consider a vasectomy while you're at it.

I didn't find it offensive. Panda is clearly aiming it at people who do what he described. Not at those who need to use the service because of an accident or failure of contraception.

Good points

I think there is a difference between those that chose to participate in sports that may have dangerous outcomes to those that smoke or drink to the point of needing their stomach pumped,

I think a small charge (maybe entitled 'admin costs') could be leived for anyone wasting hospital time with such self-inflicted complaints.

I wonder if there are any A&E Nurses that would like to comment!

They do pay - assuming they pay their taxes.

It seems like a good idea to me but for two things. What happens when whilst being out drinking (and being a little drunk) somebody decided to hit you over the head with a bottle. Are you then going to be subject to this payment for the ambulance?

Also would people call other people ambulances thinking that they may end up with the bill?

Originally posted by x_LoUiSe_x
well if they pay taxes they already do! lol
A motorist involved in an accident has to pay for the ambulance
so why not the stupid drunks who end up in fights.
Watch Booze Brittain on sky TV you might change you tune if you needed an ambulance but were told "sorry we are busy with the fighting drunks"

I know people pay their taxes, I am talking about paying for a service.

That service being; picked up my a big yellow, white and green flashing van because once again the double vodka's have hit you too hard tonight!

Appologies for sounding harsh, but am a strong believer in a woman's right to chose what happens to her body - none of this pro-life stuff - and I think that some men seem to wash their hands of all responsibility. These are usually the same men who don't like wearing condoms (go figure...)

I admit that there are a few people out there who are less than careful (men and women) but I find it very hard to believe that anyone would chose to go through the traumatic experience of an abortion unless all other measures have failed.

The morning after pill is a different story... I think quite a lot of less careful girls think of this as a back-up plan. But then it is needed for genuine cases too... so I guess it should still be free.

At the end of the day funding abortions, even for the small percentage of women who don't give a t*** about getting pregnant, has got to be less of a drain on public funds than funding child care and benefits for 16 years.

Am leaving my computer now and heading for the pub, so this debate will have to rage on (or wither) without me.

I've decided that people shouldn't pay for them. It seems like a lot of money disappears from the pay cheque, you blokes don't seem to get a lot free.

Although i don't think non tax payers should have pain killers wasted on them.

Ha ha thata teach um

Originally posted by JBee
Appologies for sounding harsh, but am a strong believer in a woman's right to chose what happens to her body - none of this pro-life stuff - and I think that some men seem to wash their hands of all responsibility. These are usually the same men who don't like wearing condoms (go figure...)

I admit that there are a few people out there who are less than careful (men and women) but I find it very hard to believe that anyone would chose to go through the traumatic experience of an abortion unless all other measures have failed.

The morning after pill is a different story... I think quite a lot of less careful girls think of this as a back-up plan. But then it is needed for genuine cases too... so I guess it should still be free.

At the end of the day funding abortions, even for the small percentage of women who don't give a t*** about getting pregnant, has got to be less of a drain on public funds than funding child care and benefits for 16 years.

Am leaving my computer now and heading for the pub, so this debate will have to rage on (or wither) without me.

All those aborted foetuses won't get a chance to follow your sigs advice, will they?

How did abortion manage to be in the topic on binge drinking, unless the abortions become the result of a night binge drinking and not knowing what was happening.

Originally posted by prioryx
How did abortion manage to be in the topic on binge drinking, unless the abortions become the result of a night binge drinking and not knowing what was happening.

I don't know why it should either prioryx, but that panda brought it into the discussion. Maybe s/he was just trolling? As maybe was Mo ... no-one goes down that road lightly. I really think we should leave out the emotive comments.

It always seems unfair to me that anyone involved in a road accident has to pay for the ambulances called to the scene, why not people involved who are so drunk/drugged they need medical attention or involved in a drink/drugs fuelled fight? I can't see the difference really, except that a road accident is harder to avoid getting into than a fight ...

I'm going out now too ... :)

Originally posted by rubydazzler
I don't know why it should either prioryx, but that panda brought it into the discussion. Maybe s/he was just trolling? As maybe was Mo ... no-one goes down that road lightly. I really think we should leave out the emotive comments.

It always seems unfair to me that anyone involved in a road accident has to pay for the ambulances called to the scene, why not people involved who are so drunk/drugged they need medical attention or involved in a drink/drugs fuelled fight? I can't see the difference really, except that a road accident is harder to avoid getting into than a fight ...

I'm going out now too ... :)

no i wasnt trolling (whatever that is ) i was just giving examples what the nhs could charge those who had brought their actions on themselves have a look at my posting on this thread further up

Originally posted by prioryx
A motorist involved in an accident has to pay for the ambulance
"

Really? where's this from?

-PK-

The problem with making people pay for their ambulances is what if they can't (maybe they've spent all their money on booze!)? You can't just leave people in the street to die!

Mod: Please keep this thread on topic, and stay nice or I'll close it! Thanks.

Under The Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, the NHS is entitled to reclaim any costs of provision to a casualty of a traffic accident, when that person recieves any compensation as a result of it. That compensation includes insurance payments.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/90003--a.htm#5)

not beign a party pooper hear but yes i belive binge drinkers should pay for theire ambulances.

has it make me mad that my sister was in labour on new years eve and in pain and rang for one,yet because she was only in pain they said she be charged up to £50 has it was not an amergancie,,now after waitin for her hubby that was 3h away at work then a futher half hour to hospital her baby became ill.

so yes why should people who go out drinking and know what they doing get a free ambulance when they people that need them may get a fine just to get to hospital for a purpus..

Originally posted by spinny
not beign a party pooper hear but yes i belive binge drinkers should pay for theire ambulances.

has it make me mad that my sister was in labour on new years eve and in pain and rang for one,yet because she was only in pain they said she be charged up to £50 has it was not an amergancie,,now after waitin for her hubby that was 3h away at work then a futher half hour to hospital her baby became ill.

so yes why should people who go out drinking and know what they doing get a free ambulance when they people that need them may get a fine just to get to hospital for a purpus..

Without wanting to sound unkind, surely if your sister was in that much pain she wouldn't have cared about the £50. I realise that £50 is a lot of money to some people, but I can't imagine that if the pain was that bad, the cost would have entered her head.

Moving back to topic, rather just charging binge drinkers for the cost of their ambulance, I think it would be more beneficial to society to charge the person with being 'Drunk and Incapable'; that way, they would have the ordeal of going through the court system, and hopefully consider their actions more carefully next time.

Incidentally, I hope your sister and her baby are doing well now. :thumbsup:

Smokers, drinkers and drivers already pay considerably more tax than those who indulge in none of these 'vices'. :) A very large proportion of the retail cost of tobacco, alcoholic drink and petrol/diesel is TAX.

Must agree though that those who get so drunk that they need medical attention should pay something for the inconvenience they cause to others, especially where this involves diverting ambulances from more derserving cases.

The finacial & social cost to our society of binge drinking is just phenomenal. Yes if you drink alcohol (or smoke fags) you pay more tax, but there's no way that tax is covering the additional burden carried by the NHS & police every friday & saturday night, is there? Not to mention the council having to clean up god knows how much vomit, p*ss, blood, kebabs, broken glass, litter etc that gets strewn across Britain's streets most nights of the week. And yet the CRAZY thing is that weed (which is a PLANT for god's sake & causes NONE of the aforementioned problems) is illegal :loopy:. Because weed is illegal all of the profit from selling it goes to criminals and funds far more horrific crimes; the government also receives no revenue from taxing weed and instead wastes precious police resources on policing this insane law :loopy: .

Hmmmm, I appeared to have gone slightly off topic there... back to the original point.

So, in principle I think binge drinkers who cost society money by their actions should have to pay something towards that cost. However, for the same reasons other people have already said, I think it would be impractial to do so. Maybe the answers lies more in looking at who's responsible for binge drinking? Could it be the big breweries looking for more profit by increasing consumption through creating all these 'vertical drinking establishments' that sell ridiculously cheap booze? Maybe if the cost was passed onto them they wouldn't be so keen to promote binge drinking?

It's usually a do-gooding passer by that calls the ambulance when the drunk is happily 'fast-on' & warm in their own excrement on a park bench.

In My Experience.


Let's make the do-gooder pay! :thumbsup:

so Don, the truth of your life starts to emerge ... :P

*note to all forummers - next time you see DonK on a park bench, just leave him there to sleep it off ... he may look cold, ill and abandoned but he's happy enuff...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JBee
[B]It's a great idea in theory, but has wider implications...

How far would you take it? Smokers paying for lung cancer treatment and athsma medicines for their local communities?

i think my mate would prefer the smokers pay for his asthma treatment and he doesnt smoke himself!! cant go anywhere , where smokers are though cos it makes him ill .....

Originally posted by rubydazzler
so Don, the truth of your life starts to emerge ... :P

*note to all forummers - next time you see DonK on a park bench, just leave him there to sleep it off ... he may look cold, ill and abandoned but he's happy enuff...

especially if I've poo'd meself! :D

Wouldn't want to waste already overstretched A/E staff & resources now, would I?

After all, the ambulance I'm being taxi'd in could be being delayed from someone having a heart attack, or a badly burned child.

It happens. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone
And the obese. And smokers.
And anyone taking part in a dangerous sport.

And any at fault car driver in an accident.

Oh and anyone who trips, or injures themselves whilst cooking or doing diy.

Sod it, lets make everyone pay.

All we need is a tax, now what shall we call it...

I know, national insurance, what a cracking idea.

I do take part in a dangerous sport and I PAY EXTRA INSURANCE to cover myself for any unnecessary injuries and other people for any damage or injury which may arise.

I dont like to be mean and we do pay for NHS thru NI payments however surely it can only stretch so far, and we are all competing for the same pot of money. Binge drinkers are getting a priority because they cause themselves critical injury through their own self-willed bad behaviour, leaving others with non-emergency problems to wait or go untreated.

Surely its a question of both responsibility and fairness. I take full responsibility for my actions, I DONT regularly, deliberately take health and welfare risks which compromise my own and others lives. It does seem unfair that I cant even get a filling on the NHS but barmily enough, if I go out get bladdered and have an accident it will get done asap as part of the treatment. Also if I throw myself of my neddy my insurance will cover it. But thats a bit extreme!

I do agree with the proposition that they should at least get billed for ambulance and hospital treatment just to make the point. If they can't pay they should be made to pay a contribution equal to the cost of a weeks or months drinking money, which they can clearly spare.

It might help some of them take a break and give their poor old livers a holiday. And frankly no-one knows how much it costs in the first place, seeing the bill would surely make us all think twice. ITs our own money were chucking away by abusing the system, as its from NI and taxes. (same for not collecting prescriptions and missing appointments too).

The NHS was established at the end of WW2, when rationing of food was still in place and when the harmful effects of smoking and bad diets were not understood. 60 years later we do know that it is bad to smoke, what a poor diet is, why not doing any exercise can be harmful – but people do all those things anyway safe in the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab. Simply, why should my NI contributions go towards the cost of treatment for someone who spends a couple of hours a week in a solarium and who then develops skin cancer? (‘it’s my choice, I pay my taxes’ I hear them bleat but they’re lost for words when trying to answer the charge that their life choices have a direct monetary impact on other people, i.e., the tax payer). With all the remarkable life choices that we have available to us in contemporary society (which were simply not present or understood when the NHS was founded), isn’t it time now to move to an individual health insurance system? Smoke, drink, eat burgers and burn your skin to a crisp if you want, but you pay for that, not me.

To suggest that we should all have personal insurance so that we can do all the stupid things that we do now and hope to get the company to pay is silly. Have you any idea what the premiums would be and have you not read all the problems people have with holiday insurance.
I wonder were these people get their money from tospend 2-3 hundred pounds on booze in a weekend, more than some people have to live on.

Agree.
Point would be that once people realise how much their actions cost, they would might rein it in a little. Fat chance with things as they are.

we should probably be clear on just what constitutes 'binge drinking'.

Pretty much anyone who goes out on a Friday night and has more than say 4 pints, is binge drinking.

I think it comes down to the fact that they have already paid for them (tax and NI).

Its not really a question of getting your "money's worth" from the state - I mean the point about "Why should my taxes pay for..... (you can really insert anything you don't agree with in this bit) is to my mind misunderstanding the point of taxation. You give the govt your hard earned, they spend it on what they see fit. You can always vote for someone else next time if it bothers you.

Public services are there for all the public (in theory), so means testing them, either because it's deemed to be your fault or for financial reasons or whatever, just seems wrong.

Just my 2 pennarth...

Good point Cyclone. If somebody is binge drinking on a habitual basis they require much more than medical help. Should the psychological help to counsel them to stop be on the nation health

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
Good point Cyclone. If somebody is binge drinking on a habitual basis they require much more than medical help. Should the psychological help to counsel them to stop be on the nation health

you are joking.

That would probably categorise 75% of 18 - 25 year olds as requiring psychological help.

My point was that it seemed to be being suggested that all binge drinkers commonly required hospital treatment, when this is clearly not the case.

So, Lets get it clear, what do people consider to be binge drinking?

Originally posted by Saifa
You give the govt your hard earned, they spend it on what they see fit. You can always vote for someone else next time if it bothers you.

I do not 'give' any money to the govt.,- they take it from me.

If you can point me to a political party which advocates the abolition of all or even some of my tax burden I'll certainly vote for them :D

Originally posted by Cyclone
we should probably be clear on just what constitutes 'binge drinking'.

Pretty much anyone who goes out on a Friday night and has more than say 4 pints, is binge drinking.

You should put "In my opinion" in front of things otherwise people assume it's a fact.

In my opinion, 4 pints is not a binge, unless you are a 15 year old girl. Most people (who go our regularly) could drink 4 pints in a night and be fine. A binge is more like drinking from lunchtime till 2am and drinking 15 pints.

Originally posted by Greybeard
I do not 'give' any money to the govt.,- they take it from me.

If you can point me to a political party which advocates the abolition of all or even some of my tax burden I'll certainly vote for them :D

are you happy to loose the services that your tax funds, or is it just a purely selfish outlook?

if you want to understand your drinking habits look on the following website or our own website on [URL=http://]http://www.sheffieldalcohol.org.uk (]http://www.howsyourdrink.org.uk[/URL) If you have any questions pm me please

Our NHS system is the envy of the world - and rightly so! The basic principle was that medical and health treatment is 'free at the point of contact' and that remains the case, and rightly so in my opinion.

If we move from a 'society' perspective to an 'individual' perspective then everyone at some point would pay for the treatment they receive.

You cannot say that drunks should pay for ambulances - they may have had their drinks spiked, it may not be their fault.

If you are look for 'fault' and 'personal liability' then many more people than drunks would have to pay.

The only people I am aware of who are billed for the ambulance are those people involved in an RTA. My brother was in an RTA and while in intensive care was sent a bill for the ambulance. He died. Not sure who paid for the ambulance in the end?

The fact that there is an enormous tax put on drink means that the ambulances are paid for. The same goes for smoking (tho I don't think the revenue covers the costs to the NHS in that case). I do however see a hole here and that is that there is no fat tax i.e a tax put on junk food. This could then cover the costs of obesity which is spiralling out of control.

I think the onus is on the government to reduce the amount of binge drinking, by controlling happy hours etc and changing licensing laws.

As for smokers, I have no sympathy they should not be allowed treatment let alone have to pay for it! They've had enough warning.

As I said in an earlier post watch Booze Brittain on Sky no one drinks just four pints on a binge drink session.
Re the ambulance service we have started an emergency defibulator service of volunteers to respond to emergency
aclls for suspected heart attacks and other serious ailments.
The reason is that it would take 10 -15 minutes for an ambulance to get to the village and as the first 5 minutes are the most critical in the case of heart attack or stroke the service is invaluable.
A bit of a blow if the ambulance is attening to a couple of drunks who were in a fight and and a relitive of you's ( the let the drunks have priority group) was dying.
I pay taxes so that means I can call on the police to take me home if i miss the last train or bus.

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
So, Lets get it clear, what do people consider to be binge drinking?

Surely its a matter of how much you can safely drink on a regular basis without causin mayhem or damaging your own health irretrievably. Different for everyone, for some people it will be nil at all times for others maybe quite a lot. The point for me is, if people go beyond their own limits and need medical treatment or emergency services as a result.

And I agree about solariums but not smoking too. My hubby smokes and I do know that he started before the age of 15 and wont be able to give up in a million years. Of course I'd want him treated if it made him ill. then again if he got drunk and caused a riot I'd be the first to say he should pay the bill for it (hardly likely, sleeping noisily and farting is about all he could probably muster!). different really, he can control one but not the other. His chance to deal with smoking slipped by a long time ago, if he chooses to drink too much one day then he has a choice there and then. Maybe its the same as smoking for people who are addicted to the alcohol, but there are plenty who seem to be addicted to drinking as an excuse for anti-social bad behaviour, rather than the actual alcohol.

Dont see why we should pay for the consequences of their deliberate and intentional bad behaviour.