Charge for Emergency call outs if your intoxicated

KwackerJack

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said people who are intoxicated by drink or drugs and get arrested or need treatment in accident and emergency units should be charged to compensate the taxpayer.

Good Idea me thinks!

galwayrush

Can we pay in euro?

Seriously, great idea. Hope it happens here as well.

AudreyHepburn

ANYONE who calls the Emergency Services out needlessly, drunk or not, should be charged imo.

KwackerJack

galwayrush wrote: »

Can we pay in euro?

Seriously, great idea. Hope it happens here as well.

When our suits see this they will rub their hands and implement it. Until then if you get pissed in the UK don't dial unless you have sterling 911

wazky

How do they define between drunkeness and genuine stupidity?

People who do stupid things to earn themselves in A and E should be charged too.

My name is URL

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

ANYONE who calls the Emergency Services out needlessly, drunk or not, should be charged imo.

There's dozens of studies which show that to be a terrible idea. People are less likely to want to call emergency services in case it costs them, which leads to lives and properties lost, and a huge cost to the state.

bumper234

Brilliant idea and the sooner it's bought in here too the better.

KwackerJack

wazky wrote: »

How do they define between drunkeness and genuine stupidity?

People who do stupid things to earn themselves in A and E should be charged too.

If your that stupid its free as you probably hid all your money in the monopoly box then gave it to charity for a Big Mac voucher!

humbert

I think it would probably make more sense to fine people for being drunk and disorderly rather than attach a penalty to medical treatment.

KwackerJack

humbert wrote: »

I think it would probably make more sense to fine people for being drunk and disorderly rather than attach a penalty to medical treatment.

We have that law but it's not exactly enforced!

shopaholic01

Probably a great idea until it happens to you.


You don't have to be completely off your face to have an accident. You might also need to add a premium for ladies who wear high heels while drinking.

We pay enough taxes, including tax added to the cost of alcohol. They can always legalise drugs and get tax from their sale too.

AudreyHepburn

My name is URL wrote: »

There's dozens of studies which show that to be a terrible idea. People are less likely to want to call emergency services in case it costs them, which leads to lives and properties lost, and a huge cost to the state.

I find it hard to imagine that a charge on such call would stop you calling 999 if you truly needed them tbh.

Seachmall

KwackerJack wrote: »

We have that law but it's not exactly enforced!

We should probably start enforcing it before introducing laws that could prevent people from seeking necessary treatment.

tayto lover

Any woman wearing high-heels and who falls and gets injured should be charged extra too. It's their own fault.
Where will it stop?

DrumSteve

KwackerJack wrote: »

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said people who are intoxicated by drink or drugs and get arrested or need treatment in accident and emergency units should be charged to compensate the taxpayer.

Good Idea me thinks!

Fair play though I thought eamonn gilmore was second in command?

PhlegmyMoses

My name is URL wrote: »

There's dozens of studies which show that to be a terrible idea. People are less likely to want to call emergency services in case it costs them, which leads to lives and properties lost, and a huge cost to the state.

Was just thinking this. People would be way less likely to call for help if they were going to be charged €200 as a result.

As for the police being called, aren't people already fined on a case by case basis for D&D or pissing in public or whatever?

**** idea Clegg.

B.A._Baracus

Not sure about this one...

On one hand you get junkies and drunks wasting hospital resources. But what if you are on a night out, you've been drinking and get randomly attacked and mugged and have to go to the hospital.

PhlegmyMoses

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine that a charge on such call would stop you calling 999 if you truly needed them tbh.

Somebody's heart rate is going 90 after taking a few pills. Worried about it but sure once they find out I'm on drugs they'll charge me a couple of hundred euro. I'll go home and sleep it off.

My name is URL

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine that a charge on such call would stop you calling 999 if you truly needed them tbh.

Do you know how many people die each year due to opting not to call for assistance, through their own stubbornness or whatever else?

Having a stipulation which says that you'll be charged for calling an ambulance unless you 100% need one, isn't going to help persuade such people to call for assistance.

KwackerJack

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Not sure about this one...

On one hand you get junkies and drunks wasting hospital resources. But what if you are on a night out, you've been drinking and get randomly attacked and mugged and have to go to the hospital.

I'm sure in that case you will be OK.

It's focused on people who get needlessly drunk and put themselves in direct harm for no reason.

Drink is no excuse for stupidity. People shouldn't drink if they can't control themselves.

hansfrei

Crazy idea.

humbert

KwackerJack wrote: »

We have that law but it's not exactly enforced!

I believe we do but only a politician would think the answer to the problem of laws not being enforced is to make more laws.

This stinks of populist bull**** that will never actually see the light of day.

hansfrei

KwackerJack wrote: »

People shouldn't drink if they can't control themselves.

Mad, if I wanted to control myself after a feed of pints I'd drink American beer in America.

KwackerJack

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Somebody's heart rate is going 90 after taking a few pills. Worried about it but sure once they find out I'm on drugs they'll charge me a couple of hundred euro. I'll go home and sleep it off.

Well don't take drugs?

As harsh as it sound if you have a muppet taking pills and a person in a car crash well id rather see the crash victim seen to first. If you take a unknown substance why risk someone else's life for your stupdity.

Not focused at you by the way, in General

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you know how many people die each year due to opting not to call for assistance, through their own stubbornness or whatever else?

Having a stipulation which says that you'll be charged for calling an ambulance unless you 100% need one, isn't going to help persuade such people to call for assistance.

It's not for someone who is unsure or worried, its the Gob****e that's to drunk to stand and falls over to pick up his battered burger, bangs his head and think he needs a head transplant while all he has is a little headache

catallus

Let's presume for a minute that the politician didn't pull this idea out of his backside to fly a kite.

Let's say he is getting reports from the medical professionals that the emergency services are being dragged underwater by drunks and druggies who request unneeded assistance.

This is the problem with offering service for free. It is abused by the sick twisted sub-human scumbags who place no value on anything that doesn't get them high.

KwackerJack

catallus wrote: »

Let's presume for a minute that the politician didn't pull this idea out of his backside to fly a kite.

Let's say he is getting reports from the medical professionals that the emergency services are being dragged underwater by drunks and druggies who request unneeded assistance.

This is the problem with offering service for free. It is abused by the sick twisted sub-human scumbags who place no value on anything that doesn't get them high.

They are being dragged by drunks and druggies. Its live on Sky News from an A&E

PhlegmyMoses

KwackerJack wrote: »

Well don't take drugs?

As harsh as it sound if you have a muppet taking pills and a person in a car crash well id rather see the crash victim seen to first. If you take a unknown substance why risk someone else's life for your stupdity.

Not focused at you by the way, in General

Then don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't eat any unhealthy food. Don't drive your car any faster than 20 miles an hour and that crash probably won't be too bad. Don't skydive. Don't bungie jump. Don't cycle a bike. Don't do any martial arts.

It's a nonsensical argument and doesn't deal with what I have posted. The guy has taken drugs. His heart isn't right and he's not thinking straight. The potential to have to pay money could be the difference between him going to the hospital or trying to ride the wave and potentially dying in the process. At this point, the law that is introduced to try to reduce the number of needless call-outs for the drunk and drugged has been counter-productive. Do you get me now?

bumper234

Go to any A&E after 10 pm on any weekend night and you will realise why this is a good idea.

KwackerJack

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Then don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't eat any unhealthy food. Don't drive your car any faster than 20 miles an hour and that crash probably won't be too bad. Don't skydive. Don't bungie jump. Don't cycle a bike. Don't do any martial arts.

It's a nonsensical argument and doesn't deal with what I have posted. The guy has taken drugs. His heart isn't right and he's not thinking straight. The potential to have to pay money could be the difference between him going to the hospital or trying to ride the wave and potentially dying in the process. At this point, the law that is introduced to try to reduce the number of needless call-outs for the drunk and drugged has been counter-productive. Do you get me now?

Drugs are illegal so if I was a paramedic and had to choose between an innocent crash victim/heart attack victim over a yob that needs drugs to have fun well the yob will have to wait!

catallus

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Then don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't eat any unhealthy food. Don't drive your car any faster than 20 miles an hour and that crash probably won't be too bad. Don't skydive. Don't bungie jump. Don't cycle a bike. Don't do any martial arts.

It's a nonsensical argument and doesn't deal with what I have posted. The guy has taken drugs. His heart isn't right and he's not thinking straight. The potential to have to pay money could be the difference between him going to the hospital or trying to ride the wave and potentially dying in the process. At this point, the law that is introduced to try to reduce the number of needless call-outs for the drunk and drugged has been counter-productive. Do you get me now?

Isn't the point of the law to deter that person from seeking assistance? He will die at less cost to the state than if he died in A&E.

randylonghorn

My name is URL wrote: »

There's dozens of studies which show that to be a terrible idea. People are less likely to want to call emergency services in case it costs them, which leads to lives and properties lost, and a huge cost to the state.

Yep, I've heard a few firemen here ranting that since the introduction of the call-out charges many people will now leave it longer before calling them / try to tackle it themselves beyond the limits of common sense, and that in the end it usually means more damage is done, more cost is involved and danger is increased for everyone concerned including the firemen.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine that a charge on such call would stop you calling 999 if you truly needed them tbh.

It's the perception of when they're "truly needed" which tends to be affected though.

It looks like a sensible idea at first glance; people being people it doesn't tend to work out that way.

PhlegmyMoses

catallus wrote: »

Isn't the point of the law to deter that person from seeking assistance? He will die at less cost to the state than if he died in A&E.

I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make. If you think that a politician is bringing in a law that measures the value of life, you're sorely mistaken. A law like this will be there to charge the people who are coming in to sleep off a drunk or who have been brought in because they've broke their hand in a drunken fight. To make the individual think the next time they are planning to head out and to make sure that the health service is covering itself financially.

KwackerJack wrote: »

Drugs are illegal so if I was a paramedic and had to choose between an innocent crash victim/heart attack victim over a yob that needs drugs to have fun well the yob will have to wait!

I hope that I never become the kind of person that makes decisions on who to help based on what I find morally acceptable.

shopaholic01

catallus wrote: »

Isn't the point of the law to deter that person from seeking assistance? He will die at less cost to the state than if he died in A&E.

Do you want people to die to save the state money?

catallus

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand the point that you're trying to make. If you think that a politician is bringing in a law that measures the value of life, you're sorely mistaken. A law like this will be there to charge the people who are coming in to sleep off a drunk or who have been brought in because they've broke their hand in a drunken fight. To make the individual think the next time they are planning to head out and to make sure that the health service is covering itself financially.

I'm pretty sure ambulance staff or nurses don't facilitate people who need to "sleep off a drunk". They will treat a person who needs medical treatment.

[/QUOTE]I hope that I never become the kind of person that makes decisions on who to help based on what I find morally acceptable.[/QUOTE]

You should be striving to become one.

catallus

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Do you want people to die to save the state money?

Hey! I didn't say that!

PhlegmyMoses

catallus wrote: »

You should be striving to become one.

Why should I? It's a reprehensible attitude.

Also, explain your original position.

catallus

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Why should I? It's a reprehensible attitude.

Also, explain your original position.

There is nothing reprehensible about making decisions based on moral judgment. Only a fool would save a stranger before their own family, for example.

My original position is self-explanatory.

Seaneh

As it is there is a fee of €100 if you present to A&E without a doctors reference letter (which is not applied if you are admitted), that is a good start.

People need to stop going to A & E when when they only need to see their gp. If you are feeling ill, go to your gp/pit of hours gp service, not the ****ing emergency department.

PhlegmyMoses

catallus wrote: »

There is nothing reprehensible about making decisions based on moral judgment. Only a fool would save a stranger before their own family, for example.

This doesn't even relate to the initial point that was being made. That is an emotionally loaded and incredibly complex situation that examines blood and familial ties. It's nothing like somebody deciding to treat a critically ill drug user as of lesser importance because you have a warped and skewed view of their choice of stimulant. If we want to go down this road, who do you choose to save: Your dad who has just overdosed on his first line of cocaine, or your mum who has had a heart attack from eating too many pies throughout her life?

My original position is self-explanatory.

It really isn't. From the sounds of it, you think that the UK government would introduce a law to act as a deterrent for a critically ill person seeking help because they would rather that they die on the street or in their bed than incur the costs of their death. If this isn't what you meant, please explain because I'm stumped.

worded

I'll drink to that


Hiiiiiic

catallus

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This doesn't even relate to the initial point that was being made. That is an emotionally loaded and incredibly complex situation that examines blood and familial ties. It's nothing like somebody deciding to treat a critically ill drug user as of lesser importance because you have a warped and skewed view of their choice of stimulant.

A person who blocks beds in A&E because they are having a cardiac event due to misuse of a stimulant should be charged an appropriate fee.
I would deem any drug user to be of lesser importance than a dog dying on the street. I'd sooner call a vet for the dog than an ambulance for the druggie. That isn't warped or skewed.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It really isn't. From the sounds of it, you think that the UK government would introduce a law to act as a deterrent for a critically ill person seeking help because they would rather that they die on the street or in their bed than incur the costs of their death. If this isn't what you meant, please explain because I'm stumped.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If medical providers are being deluged with free-loading druggies, something has to give and I'd rather see the druggies ride their wave in the privacy of their own hovels rather than see them take up a bed that a genuine medical emergency needs.

PhlegmyMoses

catallus wrote: »

A person who blocks beds in A&E because they are having a cardiac event due to misuse of a stimulant should be charged an appropriate fee.
I would deem any drug user to be of lesser importance than a dog dying on the street. I'd sooner call a vet for the dog than an ambulance for the druggie. That isn't warped or skewed.



The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If medical providers are being deluged with free-loading druggies, something has to give and I'd rather see the druggies ride their wave in the privacy of their own hovels rather than see them take up a bed that a genuine medical emergency needs.

Oh, I thought we'd have a reasonable discussion about this. Turns out you're an actual mental. I'm out.

catallus

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Oh, I thought we'd have a reasonable discussion about this. Turns out you're an actual mental. I'm out.

Ahem. We prefer the term mentalist, thanks.:p

Days 298

I'm against it. There should be no disincentive to get help when a person needs it.

KwackerJack

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Oh, I thought we'd have a reasonable discussion about this. Turns out you're an actual mental. I'm out.

catallus wrote: »

Ahem. We prefer the term mentalist, thanks.:p

Now ladies, I know it's after hours but take a chill pill

*No pun intended*

worded

I worker what medical people's opinions are, the people who deal with heroin addicts etc. abusive drug addicts.
Abusive drunks.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

KwackerJack wrote: »

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said people who are intoxicated by drink or drugs and get arrested or need treatment in accident and emergency units should be charged to compensate the taxpayer.

Good Idea me thinks!

I have news for you OP, we don't have a deputy Prime Minister and our Tainiste's name sure ain't Nick Clegg!
Next time make it obvious that you are from the UK and talking about the UK:mad:

KwackerJack

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I have news for you OP, we don't have a deputy Prime Minister and our Tainiste's name sure ain't Nick Clegg!
Next time make it obvious that you are from the UK and talking about the UK:mad:

I'm Irish and Living in Ireland, thank you.

I think that fact that you know Nick Clegg is not our Tainiste should tell you that this is a thread based on a discussion in the UK??

somefeen

What if your hammered and a piano falls on you?
Could have happened anyway

KwackerJack

somefeen wrote: »

What if your hammered and a piano falls on you?
Could have happened anyway

Did it fall on you or did you fall underneath it

Seaneh

The reason A&E is overcrowded from Wednesday night until Monday morning is simple. Most people who present don't need to be there. Most of them are people who could be treated by their gp and a good dose of them are the idiots who get drunk they are unable to function so their friends freak out thinking they were "spiked" (which doesn't ****ing happen here).

These people are wasting time and money and should be discouraged from going to A&E.