Intoxicated people should be billed for tying up resources

[Sheryn]

What a good idea, if you are under the influence and displaying anti-social behaviour requiring the police then I agree abusers should be charged and have to pay a monetary penalty and if they abuse again throw in a community service obligation as well as monetary penalty.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/abuser-pays/4869826

I don't think I am being too harsh what do others think? It may not change their behaviour but it will become user pays.

On another note....
I am also thinking that when you go to a public hospital you should receive an invoice (not a bill to be paid) but an invoice so individuals can see how much the free service they access actually costs as most people have no idea how expensive a day in hospital is or how expensive operations are.


Regards
Sheryn

As a society I believe we are switched on enough to understand user pays and that we are responsible for our behaviour.

 

[Ausprop]

we could extend this to any police attendance.

 

[Ideo]

I think people who are injured playing sport or exercising should also be billed. They made the choice to engage in risky behaviour.

 

[The Fence]

The drunks treated at Hospital for sure. They should pay.

It's getting them to pay which uses up resources again.

Sorry for the glass half empty on this one.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

I agree with the sentiment. If you're distructive in some way, you should be expected to make good. If you tie up public resources, you should have to pay for them.

You can even take it to the extremes. The user pays for any use of public resources. Free or cheap health care goes out the window, as does public education. Obviously you need to draw a line somewhere but it's hard to determine where the line should be.

What about public safety? Ideo raised the idea of extreme sports. We all like the Sydney to Hobart race, but millions from the public purse have been spent on rescue efforts. Is a day trip walking in the Blue Mountains considered an extreme sport? Better make sure you never get lost.

If it's payment for resources in regards to illegal acts only, that's fine. This also has social consiquences relating to the fact that many people would never be able to afford to pay. A drunken brawl can tie up several police officers for a day or more. The real cost of police time, resources, training & support can easily run into 4 figures simply because a few guys (or gals) got a bit carried away on New Years Eve. Most people can't come up with $10k+ overnight. In the past this sort of policy has lead to a social underclass and overcrowded debtor prisons.

It's an interesting idea and certainly has its appeal (especially to someone who's never been in hospital, worst criminal offence is a speeding ticket twice in 25 years, has no kids, doesn't drink or smoke, and pays a lot in taxes). It's also unworkable and would leave society in a much worse position.

Can I get a credit for donating blood? My blood type is O-, which is extremely rare and universal, so it's worth more.

 

[willair]

What a good idea, if you are under the influence and displaying anti-social behaviour requiring the police then I agree abusers should be charged and have to pay a monetary penalty and if they abuse again throw in a community service obligation as well as monetary penalty.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/abuser-pays/4869826

I don't think I am being too harsh what do others think? It may not change their behaviour but it will become user pays.

On another note....
I am also thinking that when you go to a public hospital you should receive an invoice (not a bill to be paid) but an invoice so individuals can see how much the free service they access actually costs as most people have no idea how expensive a day in hospital is or how expensive operations are.


Regards
Sheryn

As a society I believe we are switched on enough to understand user pays and that we are responsible for our behaviour.

Would be easy to fix from someone on the sidelines,just finish the drinking hours at 2 in the morning shut the doors but that,s never going to work,every one knows how the system works who ever control the doors in nightclubs controls what happens inside,and from a father of 4 daughters,it's a big worry..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/grog-rehab-houdini-james-najic-speaks-out/4870626

 

[Kinnon Bell]

I'd extend this to smokers too. If they chose to slowly kill themselves, why should I have to pay for it?

They smoke knowing full well the consequences but they still chose to do it.

 

[The Fence]

Driving a car involves alot of risk too. But all drivers pay for that risk, not just the ones who tie up resources from accidents etc.

Not all smokers die from smoking related disease.

Not all drug addicts die from their habits.

Like PT says, it's where to draw the line.

 

[Ideo]

I'd extend this to smokers too. If they chose to slowly kill themselves, why should I have to pay for it?

They smoke knowing full well the consequences but they still chose to do it.

But that is why they pay so much tax when they purchase them.

 

[HiEquity]

From a public policy POV, a big problem is designing a policy that is workable and practical. Policies based on smoking can't work because then people argue that they quit but when did they quit, can you prove they didn't quit etc etc - it's just unworkable and impractical. Just taxing the ciggies to the stars is relatively simple - blunt but effective.

Alcohol abuse is something I believe can be made to work however. A simple and substantial fine based on police attendance for being disorderly in a public place if your blood alcohol level is above 0.08, for example. That's all that is required in the first instance - police already carry blood alcohol testers and do this for drivers. I bet they would love a similar system for the nightclub set wasting their time. A large part of the problem here is our binge drinking culture and this would send at least some signal that it's just not good enough to be drunk / drug affected in a public place and wasting police time.

 

[MTR]

I'd extend this to smokers too. If they chose to slowly kill themselves, why should I have to pay for it?

They smoke knowing full well the consequences but they still chose to do it.

What about obese people you are also paying for this, that probably counts for 75% of the population

 

[weg]

I think the home handyman that doesn't follow proper OH&S procedures and hurts themselves should be charged too.

Obviously they'll need to be investigated beforehand and charged accordingly for that as well.

 

[Bigtone]

I think people who are injured playing sport or exercising should also be billed. They made the choice to engage in risky behaviour.

I can't agree with that, people who play sport and exercise long term are healthier and are less likely than a drain on public finances.

Drunks and drug od's should maybe get one chance cause hey it could happen to anyone of us but for repeat offenders they should have to pay

 

[Ideo]

I can't agree with that, people who play sport and exercise long term are healthier and are less likely than a drain on public finances.

Drunks and drug od's should maybe get one chance cause hey it could happen to anyone of us but for repeat offenders they should have to pay

But they have made a decision to undertake behaviour that can be considered risky. Therefore why should the rest of us have to pay for it? I mean, someone might chose to play rugby, which has a much higher injury level than, say, indoor rock climbing. Why shouldn't they pay more, based on the logic of the first post?

 

[weg]

Drunks and drug od's should maybe get one chance cause hey it could happen to anyone of us but for repeat offenders they should have to pay

What if they can't pay like most criminals can't pay for legal representation?

Do we leave them untreated (and deny them legal aid)?

Where and with whom do you draw the line?

 

[The Fence]

Dont sport people pay insurance, therefore paying their way?
Dont the clubs pay for the ambulance attendance etc etc..?

Dont drivers pay greenslips and insur...same?

Yes, smokers do already pay their way, heavilly.

All I can ask anyone who seems to want to put the burden of anything that costs on the perpretators is where do you draw the line...?

 

[Ideo]

Dont sport people pay insurance, therefore paying their way?
Dont the clubs pay for the ambulance attendance etc etc..?

Dont drivers pay greenslips and insur...same?

Yes, smokers do already pay their way, heavilly.

All I can ask anyone who seems to want to put the burden of anything that costs on the perpretators is where do you draw the line...?

I don't agree with the idea at all. Which is why I was using ridiculous examples.

 

[robbiejuve]

I think people who are injured playing sport or exercising should also be billed. They made the choice to engage in risky behaviour.

This is a great idea as long as inactive people are willing to pay all medical bills for illnesses related to leading an inactive lifestyle. They made the choice to engage in doing nothing.

I guarantee the cost of a knee reconstruction pales in comparison to treatments for Metabolic syndrome.

I know you were joking but its not far from many people's attitude.

 

[vbplease]

..Why shouldn't they pay more, based on the logic of the first post?

The op's logic isn't simply "they took upon the risk, therefore they should wear the consequences", i think it's more "they took up an anti-social activity where the negative consequences that outweigh the positive”.

I’d propose a formulae based on a risk matrix and weighting for pos and neg consequences to society 
So cost to patient = (likelihood of injury) x ($$ of rehab) x (benefit of activity to society)

 

[Aaron Sice]

so where do we draw the line....?

it's a very US style system where user pays.

smoking for 30 years and expect public health care for your liver transplant? mmmm....nope.

made a bad decision and have to pay for it for the rest of your life? mmmm.....nope.