Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Tonights hangover will cost NHS 23 million quid.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
It is being suggested that each drunken lunatic be charged £532 ...todays Guardian.

I'll be at home having a spliff.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll be working ... making sure the "drunken lunatics" don't cause any trouble.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A few will die too.
    Be careful everyone and have a safe and jolly time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't be arsed to go out on NYE to be honest. Don't mind house parties but I really can't do with overpriced bars and clubs any more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Be interested to know where they got £532 from. If they need to stay overnight then fair enough, but a quick trip into A&E is about £80.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I had a mate around mine and we had 8 beers. Like with the above post, I fail to understand where the £532 per drunk person comes from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was working last night, was absolutely dead where I was. Although it could be because we were stood there and everytime the trouble makers saw us they'd wander off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I went out for a meal and then watched the fireworks over London from Primrose Hill with a flask of cocoa. No drunken antics for me any more - I'm too old for that :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I went to the Bethnal Green Working Men's Club, got rip-roaring drunk, pulled a hottie and then got a £40 cab back to Fulham. Didn't cause any fights, didn't vomit in the street, didn't end up in A&E. Had an absolute blast.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Be interested to know where they got £532 from. If they need to stay overnight then fair enough, but a quick trip into A&E is about £80.
    Monserrat wrote: »
    I had a mate around mine and we had 8 beers. Like with the above post, I fail to understand where the £532 per drunk person comes from.

    Remember, these are just AVERAGES. They probably add up all parts of the service ... so the hourly (overtime?) costs of the nurse (or nurses) that attend; possibly the cost of a doctor too; the cleaner that has to clean the blood and vomit off the floor; the ambulance that needs to bring a person in; the electricity to keep the lights and heating on etc etc

    I know that a fatal motorway accident costs over £1 million to sort out and clean up.

    To be honest, I feel if someone gets so drunk that they need hospital treatment, then perhaps they should foot the bill - especially if violence is involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree, why should they pay? It undermines the whole basis of the NHS.

    You might as well charge the insurance company for the motor accident. There's usually fault and if people didn't drive then car crashes wouldn't happen...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I disagree, why should they pay? It undermines the whole basis of the NHS.

    You might as well charge the insurance company for the motor accident. There's usually fault and if people didn't drive then car crashes wouldn't happen...

    But they chose to ge drunk. I don't anyone who has been invovled in a motorbike accident who has chosen to do so.

    Why should they pay? Because they're preventing vital services getting to people who need them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    But they chose to ge drunk. I don't anyone who has been invovled in a motorbike accident who has chosen to do so.

    Why should they pay? Because they're preventing vital services getting to people who need them.

    Anyone who does anything carries some risk. Smoker, drinkers, people who exercise, people who have bad diet, people who get into cars or onto motor bikes.

    Everything has a risk. The minute you deny treatment on the basis of a choice you effectively say that choice is relevant to treatment and that's a slippery slope. Why should non drivers pay taxes to cover the cost of treating drivers for example.

    The people you should focus on aren't the drunks, but those who call ambulances and go to A&E when they have a cough/cold or flu, when they have slight sunburn. Not because it's a choice they have made but because there are services which are better and cheaper. That's the real waste.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about the people who have their drinks spiked? They didn't choose to get drunk, yet if you allow that as an excuse people will just claim that instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about the people who have their drinks spiked? They didn't choose to get drunk, yet if you allow that as an excuse people will just claim that instead.

    Doesn't that show up in blood tests?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount paid in tax on alchol and cigs perhaps they should get priority treatment?;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount paid in tax on alchol and cigs perhaps they should get priority treatment?;)

    Well I wonder how much money the government will make on VAT and duties from ciggies and drink in that one night?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    But they chose to ge drunk. I don't anyone who has been invovled in a motorbike accident who has chosen to do so.

    Why should they pay? Because they're preventing vital services getting to people who need them.

    The whole point of universal healthcare is that it is provided to all, regardless of means or cause. The only basis should be need.

    The second you start denying treatment to people because of how they have come to have their injury, illness, or condition is the second the service ceases to be universal.

    Should you deny treatment to motorists who have been in car accidents because, on the face of it, it's quite dangerous going around at 70mph in a metal box filled with flammable liquid?

    Should you deny treatment to jockeys or skiiers who have done two of the most dangerous sports in the world for "fun" and got injured in the process?

    I'm worried that if any restrictions are put on treatment because of how you came to get into the condition you're in, it will not stop at people who have had too much to drink.

    Do you smoke? No treatment.
    Do you drink? No treatment
    Do you not eat your 5-a-day? No treatment
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount paid in tax on alchol and cigs perhaps they should get priority treatment?;)

    Which is the central point of the argument against denying smokers treatment on the NHS for smoking-related illnesses.

    Cost of treating smoking-related diseases per year? £500m
    Amount of tax generated per annum from fags? £10bn

    It is, as our Yankee cousins would say, a no-brainer.

    I expect the red fucking carpet treatment if I get so much as a sore throat given the amount of money I've given to the NHS. As far as I'm concerned, I'm massively in credit with them and I want some cool shit to show for it :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which is the central point of the argument against denying smokers treatment on the NHS for smoking-related illnesses.

    Cost of treating smoking-related diseases per year? £500m
    Amount of tax generated per annum from fags? £10bn

    Hardly. I've never even seen a conservative estimate that puts the burden at just £500m, so I'd love to know where you pulled that figure from. Smokers might be in credit, but nowhere near as much as they like to claim. Another factor is that some of the £10bn is VAT (according to the tobacco industry itself). Now let's face it, not spending money on cigarettes doesn't equal not spending money at all, so £1.8bn of that tax generated would most likely still be generated on whatever else people choose to spend their money on instead. You can only have tobacco-specific taxes as an example of money generated from smoking, not taxes that are the result of general economic activity that would be generated whatever the product happened to be. Also ignored is the cost to businesses of staff smoking, which are estimated at over £2bn. So while the exact figure might indicate that smokers are in credit, it's certainly not as clear cut as some like to make out. I've already counted up £7bn of costs, and cut your revenue down to £8.2bn, and that's not a massive amount of wiggle room.

    Something tells me that drinkers will be making up for the reduction in tobacco-generated tax in the coming years. And then when people stop drinking, they might have to legalise other stuff to tax us on. :D I don't seem to be able to find any figures regarding the total revenue generated from duty on alcohol, although I believe it costs far more than tobacco. Not so much to the NHS, but in policing and costs to business. But I would also guess that far more people drink and so far more tax is forthcoming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Everything has a risk. The minute you deny treatment on the basis of a choice you effectively say that choice is relevant to treatment and that's a slippery slope.

    I agree.

    The problem with denying treatment on the basis of choice is how far do you go? Should rugby players be charged to treat their broken nose? Should heart disease patients be charged, since the chances were that their lifestyle contributed to the disease? Should pregnant women pay for their maternity services? It was generally their choice to have a baby, and they must be costing the NHS a fortune.

    I think it's a shame that people do get so drunk that they end up in hospital, but as has been mentioned, it's a health service for all, and that includes people who need treatment because of their own actions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should you deny treatment to motorists who have been in car accidents because, on the face of it, it's quite dangerous going around at 70mph in a metal box filled with flammable liquid?

    But not all motorbike accidents are the motorists fault. Yet, if a smoker develops a disease related to smoking, then that's obviously their fault.

    And why should I (as a non-smoker who rarely drinks) have to wait for treatment, because you think smokers should get treatment first for the amount of tax they pay? (or have paid, in the case of ex-smokers)
    Cost of treating smoking-related diseases per year? £500m
    Amount of tax generated per annum from fags? £10bn

    Do you have a link to this, please?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian I would give you your point if you were talking about cars, but since you insist on going on about motorbikes:

    No, you're right, it's not their fault, but it is also their CHOICE to get onto a machine that doesn't protect them as well as a car would and subsequently have to take into account the risks associated with it, much as a smoker would take into account the risks of smoking. And I'm saying that as someone whose uncle can't walk because somebody went into the back of his bike, and who watched one of their teachers walk around with a great hunk of metal sticking out of his leg because someone wasn't watching where they were going. I can assure you neither of them were at fault but they also took the risk of owning and using a bike and were unfortunate.

    Not all smokers die of smoking related diseases, and seriously you need to get over your OMG SMOKING IS TEH EVILZ vendetta because I know we've had this argument before.

    I smoke, yeh, but I don't drink excessively and never have. I think it's ridiculous and I fail to see how it can in any way be considered 'fun' to be crawling over the floor trying not to puke, but people do it and they enjoy it and whatever. Just because it is their choice doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated. I knew a girl in high school who drank a whole bottle of vodka straight and had to have her stomach pumped. Was she stupid? Yes. Should she have been treated? Of course.

    I think you seem to be forgetting that these people who you see as so evil and horrible are actual people and fuck you if you think I shouldn't be treated just because I like nicotine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    Not all smokers die of smoking related diseases, and seriously you need to get over your OMG SMOKING IS TEH EVILZ vendetta because I know we've had this argument before.

    I never said smoking is evil. But I do think it is a digusting habit (my dad & grandad are ex-smokers. Both only stopped because it make them very ill) and I don't understand why I should have to breathe it in too? Especially as someone with a messed up immune system who catches nearly every illness going.

    And yeah, I do know bikes are dangerous - my dad has been involved in an accident (not his fault) but he was lucky it was only minor. And I have had a friend try to talk me out of getting one, on the basis that they are more dangerous than a motorbike. (someone told me that, motorbikes are the second most dangerous thing, after being a pedestrian)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hardly. I've never even seen a conservative estimate that puts the burden at just £500m, so I'd love to know where you pulled that figure from. Smokers might be in credit, but nowhere near as much as they like to claim. Another factor is that some of the £10bn is VAT (according to the tobacco industry itself). Now let's face it, not spending money on cigarettes doesn't equal not spending money at all, so £1.8bn of that tax generated would most likely still be generated on whatever else people choose to spend their money on instead. You can only have tobacco-specific taxes as an example of money generated from smoking, not taxes that are the result of general economic activity that would be generated whatever the product happened to be. Also ignored is the cost to businesses of staff smoking, which are estimated at over £2bn. So while the exact figure might indicate that smokers are in credit, it's certainly not as clear cut as some like to make out. I've already counted up £7bn of costs, and cut your revenue down to £8.2bn, and that's not a massive amount of wiggle room.

    Something tells me that drinkers will be making up for the reduction in tobacco-generated tax in the coming years. And then when people stop drinking, they might have to legalise other stuff to tax us on. :D I don't seem to be able to find any figures regarding the total revenue generated from duty on alcohol, although I believe it costs far more than tobacco. Not so much to the NHS, but in policing and costs to business. But I would also guess that far more people drink and so far more tax is forthcoming.

    All that's possibly true, but if you're talking in purely economic terms it doesn't tell the whole story.

    Most smokers survive long enough to reach retirement age, but then die quicker saving on pensions. Also its not as if non-smokers don't cost a lot, I'd be willing to bet my non-smoking gran cost the NHS more with being in and out of hospital constantly for the last three years of her life, than my smoking uncle who was diagnosed and dead of cancer within six months. Even more if you factor in things like her hip problems and keeping her quality of life as she got older


    PS 13 hours since I had my last one and I'm fairly clawing at my keyboard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    I don't understand why I should have to breathe it in too?)

    But you're happy to walk down a busy street with cars driving past doing exactly the same damage? Or breath in the exhaust from the motorbikes you keep talking about? One cigarette when you're outdoors will do almost nothing before it's dispersed into the air.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All that's possibly true, but if you're talking in purely economic terms it doesn't tell the whole story.

    Most smokers survive long enough to reach retirement age, but then die quicker saving on pensions. Also its not as if non-smokers don't cost a lot, I'd be willing to bet my non-smoking gran cost the NHS more with being in and out of hospital constantly for the last three years of her life, than my smoking uncle who was diagnosed and dead of cancer within six months. Even more if you factor in things like her hip problems and keeping her quality of life as she got older.

    But she was also contributing taxes for more years before she cashed it all in on the final set of treatments. Paying taxes for 80 years and getting some expensive treatment before you die or paying taxes for 55 or 60 years and getting some slightly less expensive treatment? Which is better? I would suggest that more years of active life equals more years of economic activity, which results in more money for the economy in the first place. Anyway, my point was that it's clearly bollocks that smokers put 20 times in what they get out, and that therefore everyone should be grateful to smokers for the sacrifice they're making for the rest of us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    But you're happy to walk down a busy street with cars driving past doing exactly the same damage? Or breath in the exhaust from the motorbikes you keep talking about? One cigarette when you're outdoors will do almost nothing before it's dispersed into the air.

    I CHOOSE to walk down the street and therefore, breathe the exhaust fumes from cars in. I don't choose to walk down the road and breathe in someone else's smoke.

    Last time I checked, other peoples' smoke makes me smell - car fumes don't.
    Anyway, my point was that it's clearly bollocks that smokers put 20 times in what they get out, and that therefore everyone should be grateful to smokers for the sacrifice they're making for the rest of us.

    I agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But she was also contributing taxes for more years before she cashed it all in on the final set of treatments. Paying taxes for 80 years and getting some expensive treatment before you die or paying taxes for 55 or 60 years and getting some slightly less expensive treatment? Which is better? I would suggest that more years of active life equals more years of economic activity, which results in more money for the economy in the first place. Anyway, my point was that it's clearly bollocks that smokers put 20 times in what they get out, and that therefore everyone should be grateful to smokers for the sacrifice they're making for the rest of us.

    Most people pay the vast majority of their tax before retirement age. A good work pension will be about 50% of your pay (and will therefore for most people be a cut of more than 50% in taxes). And whilst there are benefits for the economy in there spend, it is more than cancelled out by the amount being paid to them by the state and private pension schemes.

    Now i'd agree the 20 times seems a little dubious to me, but the overall jist that economically the average smoker puts more in than a non-smoker seems true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But she was also contributing taxes for more years before she cashed it all in on the final set of treatments. Paying taxes for 80 years and getting some expensive treatment before you die or paying taxes for 55 or 60 years and getting some slightly less expensive treatment? Which is better? I would suggest that more years of active life equals more years of economic activity, which results in more money for the economy in the first place. Anyway, my point was that it's clearly bollocks that smokers put 20 times in what they get out, and that therefore everyone should be grateful to smokers for the sacrifice they're making for the rest of us.

    Add to the that the issue of the social cost of yanno, dead family members.

    I think if a smoker put in exactly the amount of tax it costs the NHS in the last year to help them with smoking habit we are doing smokers a disservice. The tax should be higher.. to factor in the fact that if you smoke, you increase the relative chance of you dying younger, and so increase the relative 'cost' to your family because its more years of their life they're without their gran, mother, father, brother, sister... is that not a cost worth accounting for somehow?

    So a good wedge of these surplus funds can be thrown at a) research into tobacco, b) helping people quit c) educating people so they are less likely to take the risk, or at least limit themselves because they understand 60 a day will kill them d) any other number of social incentives to improve the lives of people in this country.

    Whilst this all sounds very communist (and I like to think of myself as libertarian to a degree), you can't argue that people are 'rational decision makers' under the influence of such an insidious (cos its hurting you without you realising day-to-day) and addictive substance. The market fails, and so we need to react to that and step in.
Sign In or Register to comment.