Charge drunks for hospital care (From York Press)

Hmm a very simplistic view. But where does charging people who do something that entails potential for injury/ilness stop??? Do we charge everyone that plays sport who needs medical attention, do we charge people who are obese for any treatment they require??? Do we charge smokers for their treatment???? Do we treat anyone, or the dependants of anyone, who has not paid National insurance contributions to a certain level, becuase if we do start to go down those avenues then we may as well get rid of the NHS and just have a service that treats those that can afford to pay.
Incidentally there is an argument that is based on the fact that most of the above groups, drinkers included have paid far more in taxes than the cost to the NHS for their treatment.
An article published by the BBC in 2008, so is still fairly relevant, states that the cost of tobacco related treatment cost about £3 billion, whilst the income received from taxation is in the region of £10 billion, a "profit" of some £7 billion and I suspect that other groups will be in "profit" also. so in fact they have more than paid for their treatments.
The real burden on the NHS is the elderly, and the cost of treating them is going to increase as people live longer and require more and dearer treatments. The last sentance is not an attack on the elderly but a fact of the world today.

Nice idea, but in practice alcohol abusers aren't likely to be worth pursuing - high incidence of chaotic lifestyles. living on benefits (and proceeds of crime), etc.

This letter is motivated by a genuine concern for the high costs paid by the NHS treating incidents which result from drunkeness. However, in practice it means charging people for healthcare and, as such, would undermine the basic principle of the NHS - which is that healthcare should be free to all, regardless of their income.

I agree that the costs discussed are a problem. This is just not the right way to go about solving it.

The same tired arguments that are impractical to implement.

Who is a drunk? If I have had a few drinks and was minding my own business but someone attacks me do I have to pay? If my grandmother has had a couple of sherries with her lunch and gets run over on her way home, does she have to pay?

The only way this could work is for A&E to have a breath test upon entry and a nice government department to deal with the administration for those cases where we don't want to apply it and the recovery of money from people who often won't have the means to pay any fine. Just how much money is that going to save?

As Owen C points out the NHS is free at the point of service, if you support this principle, charging people for A&E visits is a non-starter. As with many means/situation tested ideas, the cost involved in testing them far outweighs the money saved. This is unfortunate but true.

I also believe that, on average, a smoker lives 7 years less than a non-smoker. Thats seven years less claiming pensions and supplementary benefits. The only cost-analysis attack that stacks-up is the one against stingy abstentists. They contribute little but suffer a long drawn-out old age. I think Dave Allen or Billy Connolly could do a good sketch on this one.