Emergencies only

York Press: Emergencies only Emergencies only

A MEDICAL “drunk tank” is to open at weekends and on race days in St Helen’s Square to help the hospital emergency department, by cutting down on admissions (Drunk tank to reduce pressure on A&E, June 7).

The NHS is having trouble with funding at the moment, so how the devil is this going to be funded?

Surely someone who is drunk and is admitted to hospital because of being drunk should pay the cost of any treatment needed, and the cost of the ambulance for taking them to hospital.

The taxpayer should not have to cough up to pay for drunks’ treatment. A&E is for emergencies only.

Tom Mitchell, Mendip Close, Huntington, York.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Thu 12 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

as it a response to the Medical or Drunk Tank, rebuild part of the old Cattle Market, instead of cattle replace Drunks and a fire hose.
as it a response to the Medical or Drunk Tank, rebuild part of the old Cattle Market, instead of cattle replace Drunks and a fire hose. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 3

2:13pm Thu 12 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 9

6:36pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -16

7:34pm Thu 12 Jun 14

julia brica says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.[/p][/quote]"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar. julia brica
  • Score: -15

11:13pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Jonothon says...

julia brica wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar.
Matthew, what are you talking about. It makes no sense. The 20 MPH thing is a government recommendation to councils promoted by the department of transport.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.[/p][/quote]"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar.[/p][/quote]Matthew, what are you talking about. It makes no sense. The 20 MPH thing is a government recommendation to councils promoted by the department of transport. Jonothon
  • Score: 13

11:13pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Jonothon says...

julia brica wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar.
Matthew, what are you talking about. It makes no sense. The 20 MPH thing is a government recommendation to councils promoted by the department of transport.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.[/p][/quote]"One persons uptight and sanctimonious moral code" Do you mean similar to Anna Semylons 20mph crusade. Sounds pretty familiar.[/p][/quote]Matthew, what are you talking about. It makes no sense. The 20 MPH thing is a government recommendation to councils promoted by the department of transport. Jonothon
  • Score: 13

1:49am Fri 13 Jun 14

Magicman! says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
Just because some people have higher morals than other, does that make them wrong... or "uptight and sanctimonious" as you put it? Or are those who have a higher moral code supposed to debase themselves to the level of others? whilst we're at it, why not get rid of windows in shops, so that those on crack can help themselves to free stuff to pay for their addiction?

An extreme suggestion perhaps... but the fact is that for the majority of people on club nights and racedays, they are ordinary people (ie NOT addicts) who somehow associate getting completely blind drunk to the point of nearly poisoning themselves as somehow "having a good time". Considering there are laws in place to make it less pleasant for people to smoke in public places, and there are laws prohibiting sale and use of certain drugs which have been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, I fail to see why people who voluntarily put themselves in such a position should then expect everybody else to foot the bill time after time. Twice perhaps, but make it a "3 strike" rule where on the 3rd time and every other time after that the person is fined a minimum of £200 if they have to be assisted by the emergency services.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.[/p][/quote]Just because some people have higher morals than other, does that make them wrong... or "uptight and sanctimonious" as you put it? Or are those who have a higher moral code supposed to debase themselves to the level of others? whilst we're at it, why not get rid of windows in shops, so that those on crack can help themselves to free stuff to pay for their addiction? An extreme suggestion perhaps... but the fact is that for the majority of people on club nights and racedays, they are ordinary people (ie NOT addicts) who somehow associate getting completely blind drunk to the point of nearly poisoning themselves as somehow "having a good time". Considering there are laws in place to make it less pleasant for people to smoke in public places, and there are laws prohibiting sale and use of certain drugs which have been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, I fail to see why people who voluntarily put themselves in such a position should then expect everybody else to foot the bill time after time. Twice perhaps, but make it a "3 strike" rule where on the 3rd time and every other time after that the person is fined a minimum of £200 if they have to be assisted by the emergency services. Magicman!
  • Score: 2

9:44am Fri 13 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

Magicman! wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either?

Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.
Couldn't agree more, well said.

And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.
Just because some people have higher morals than other, does that make them wrong... or "uptight and sanctimonious" as you put it? Or are those who have a higher moral code supposed to debase themselves to the level of others? whilst we're at it, why not get rid of windows in shops, so that those on crack can help themselves to free stuff to pay for their addiction?

An extreme suggestion perhaps... but the fact is that for the majority of people on club nights and racedays, they are ordinary people (ie NOT addicts) who somehow associate getting completely blind drunk to the point of nearly poisoning themselves as somehow "having a good time". Considering there are laws in place to make it less pleasant for people to smoke in public places, and there are laws prohibiting sale and use of certain drugs which have been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, I fail to see why people who voluntarily put themselves in such a position should then expect everybody else to foot the bill time after time. Twice perhaps, but make it a "3 strike" rule where on the 3rd time and every other time after that the person is fined a minimum of £200 if they have to be assisted by the emergency services.
Once again, this is an arbitrary line that you've drawn based on your own personal beliefs - it's not fair and certainly would exclude people who are actually deserving of treatment. And again, what if you applied this argument to other areas? Why not argue that a child who got knocked down while crossing the road should be fined because they didn't look in both directions? Or that an elderly person who fell down should be fined because they weren't using a walking stick?

You (and others) don't have a 'higher moral code' - you have opinions which are different from other people's. The concept of a moral code is entirely socially constructed anyway so there's no reason you should be applying your own ideas to how other people live their lives.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: Expecting drunk people to pay for their own medical treatment is all well and good but where do you draw the line? Would alcoholics be forced to pay even if they are diagnosed with addiction? Drug users/smokers also forced to pay? What about people who partake in extreme sports - surely if they chose to engage in something dangerous then it's their own fault for sustaining serious injuries so we taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for that either? Privatising any part of the NHS will only start us on the path to full privatisation - you can't draw arbitrary lines over who does and does not deserve treatment.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. And those arbitrary lines being drawn are even less valid when they are based on one person's uptight and sanctimonious moral code.[/p][/quote]Just because some people have higher morals than other, does that make them wrong... or "uptight and sanctimonious" as you put it? Or are those who have a higher moral code supposed to debase themselves to the level of others? whilst we're at it, why not get rid of windows in shops, so that those on crack can help themselves to free stuff to pay for their addiction? An extreme suggestion perhaps... but the fact is that for the majority of people on club nights and racedays, they are ordinary people (ie NOT addicts) who somehow associate getting completely blind drunk to the point of nearly poisoning themselves as somehow "having a good time". Considering there are laws in place to make it less pleasant for people to smoke in public places, and there are laws prohibiting sale and use of certain drugs which have been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, I fail to see why people who voluntarily put themselves in such a position should then expect everybody else to foot the bill time after time. Twice perhaps, but make it a "3 strike" rule where on the 3rd time and every other time after that the person is fined a minimum of £200 if they have to be assisted by the emergency services.[/p][/quote]Once again, this is an arbitrary line that you've drawn based on your own personal beliefs - it's not fair and certainly would exclude people who are actually deserving of treatment. And again, what if you applied this argument to other areas? Why not argue that a child who got knocked down while crossing the road should be fined because they didn't look in both directions? Or that an elderly person who fell down should be fined because they weren't using a walking stick? You (and others) don't have a 'higher moral code' - you have opinions which are different from other people's. The concept of a moral code is entirely socially constructed anyway so there's no reason you should be applying your own ideas to how other people live their lives. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 5

6:22pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Well said again SpinningJenny.

All of this is only a couple of steps away from "Well, his race is genetically predisposed to . We'll offer no more treatment to all of that race"
Well said again SpinningJenny. All of this is only a couple of steps away from "Well, his race is genetically predisposed to . We'll offer no more treatment to all of that race" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Well said again SpinningJenny.

All of this is only a couple of steps away from "Well, his race is genetically predisposed to . We'll offer no more treatment to all of that race"
Well that didn't work...

"His race is genetically predisposed to (whatever disease)... etc
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well said again SpinningJenny. All of this is only a couple of steps away from "Well, his race is genetically predisposed to . We'll offer no more treatment to all of that race"[/p][/quote]Well that didn't work... "His race is genetically predisposed to (whatever disease)... etc Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree