Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:07:07 GMT
Someone at the point of need would have to make a blame judgement though surely? A judgement, but let's not be emotive and use the word blame. Let's call it probable cause. Where a Dr signs off on probable cause the cost of treatment is then linked back through the person's NI number to HMRC and the cost us added to their tax code. Reducing their net income will have a positive impact on excessive drinking Sorry Oldie, but that is totally unworkable. I think the Doc's have enough to do without forcing them to become a Sherlock Holmes...and legally, I'm pretty sure you cannot take money from someone based on a 'probable cause' when the person making the judgement has zero expertise in these legal matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 14, 2018 12:10:48 GMT
Someone at the point of need would have to make a blame judgement though surely? A judgement, but let's not be emotive and use the word blame. Let's call it probable cause. Where a Dr signs off on probable cause the cost of treatment is then linked back through the person's NI number to HMRC and the cost us added to their tax code. Reducing their net income will have a positive impact on excessive drinking So, if someone is an alcoholic because they were abused as a child, or a victim of domestic violence do we put their tax up, or sting their father? It's just completely unworkable. As an aside, if you are a woman in a man's body could you make the argument that you are broken? I am playing devils advocate with that last point obviously. There is a LOT of money wasted in the NHS that could be fixed before we need to worry about sex change ops. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:12:51 GMT
A judgement, but let's not be emotive and use the word blame. Let's call it probable cause. Where a Dr signs off on probable cause the cost of treatment is then linked back through the person's NI number to HMRC and the cost us added to their tax code. Reducing their net income will have a positive impact on excessive drinking Sorry Oldie, but that is totally unworkable. I think the Doc's have enough to do without forcing them to become a Sherlock Holmes...and legally, I'm pretty sure you cannot take money from someone based on a 'probable cause' when the person making the judgement has zero expertise in these matters. Completely disagree. Probable Cause in this instance is a medical decision which Drs make every minute of the day. Where a service is provided to alleviate the outcomes of that cause a charge is made where the law dictates it should be. I really don't think it's that difficult. The issue is more cultural I suspect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:18:48 GMT
A judgement, but let's not be emotive and use the word blame. Let's call it probable cause. Where a Dr signs off on probable cause the cost of treatment is then linked back through the person's NI number to HMRC and the cost us added to their tax code. Reducing their net income will have a positive impact on excessive drinking So, if someone is an alcoholic because they were abused as a child, or a victim of domestic violence do we put their tax up, or sting their father? It's just completely unworkable. As an aside, if you are a woman in a man's body could you make the argument that you are broken? I am playing devils advocate with that last point obviously. There is a LOT of money wasted in the NHS that could be fixed before we need to worry about sex change ops. Hugo Alcoholism is a disease, generally treatment for which originates through a GP. Of course that does not come into play. A patients medical record would show this. As does issues such as depression etc. Thats why its a "A Probable Cause" decision. Sex change is more problematic I do not know enough about it to be able to argue for probable cause. This is one for NHS England to decide if they want to pay for this over life threatening diseases treatment. It's clear we cannot afford everything |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 14, 2018 12:22:55 GMT
So, if someone is an alcoholic because they were abused as a child, or a victim of domestic violence do we put their tax up, or sting their father? It's just completely unworkable. As an aside, if you are a woman in a man's body could you make the argument that you are broken? I am playing devils advocate with that last point obviously. There is a LOT of money wasted in the NHS that could be fixed before we need to worry about sex change ops. Hugo Alcoholism is a disease, generally treatment for which originates through a GP. Of course that does not come into play. A patients medical record would show this. As does issues such as depression etc. Thats why its a "A Probable Cause" decision. Sex change is more problematic I do not know enough about it to be able to argue for probable cause. This is one for NHS England to decide if they want to pay for this over life threatening diseases treatment. It's clear we cannot afford everything There is debate in medicine about that. Not everyone agrees it's a disease. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2018 12:24:00 GMT
Sorry Oldie, but that is totally unworkable. I think the Doc's have enough to do without forcing them to become a Sherlock Holmes...and legally, I'm pretty sure you cannot take money from someone based on a 'probable cause' when the person making the judgement has zero expertise in these matters. Completely disagree. Probable Cause in this instance is a medical decision which Drs make every minute of the day. Where a service is provided to alleviate the outcomes of that cause a charge is made where the law dictates it should be. I really don't think it's that difficult. The issue is more cultural I suspect. For once I have to disagree with you Oldie, may be fine in theory but it won't work in practice once the lawyers challenge it in court. For me it would be better to have cost at the point of impact, so that is taxes on alcohol, tobacco and even things like sugar being ringfenced for NHS use. I would also like to see things like car tax and fuel duty ringfenced for transport. All part of a tax overhaul and open government. If there is a cultural challenge, it is probably closer to home. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:26:32 GMT
Hugo Alcoholism is a disease, generally treatment for which originates through a GP. Of course that does not come into play. A patients medical record would show this. As does issues such as depression etc. Thats why its a "A Probable Cause" decision. Sex change is more problematic I do not know enough about it to be able to argue for probable cause. This is one for NHS England to decide if they want to pay for this over life threatening diseases treatment. It's clear we cannot afford everything There is debate in medicine about that. Not everyone agrees it's a disease. Alcoholism? I thought the definition of disease when it comes to addiction is when the physical body becomes in need of the chemical? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:31:11 GMT
Completely disagree. Probable Cause in this instance is a medical decision which Drs make every minute of the day. Where a service is provided to alleviate the outcomes of that cause a charge is made where the law dictates it should be. I really don't think it's that difficult. The issue is more cultural I suspect. For once I have to disagree with you Oldie, may be fine in theory but it won't work in practice once the lawyers challenge it in court. For me it would be better to have cost at the point of impact, so that is taxes on alcohol, tobacco and even things like sugar being ringfenced for NHS use. I would also like to see things like car tax and fuel duty ringfenced for transport. All part of a tax overhaul and open government. If there is a cultural challenge, it is probably closer to home. Stuart I am 100% in favour of hypothecation of taxes, it ensure ministers are held to account. If that happened then I agree with you completely. But I think there is less chance of getting that through Parliament than a charging mechanism. A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. In the meantime, we have an NHS unravelling in front of our eyes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:32:52 GMT
"A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. "
That's blown your argument, right there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:35:59 GMT
"A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. " That's blown your argument, right there. Do you think our ageing process results in such a degree of cynicism? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 14, 2018 12:37:14 GMT
There is debate in medicine about that. Not everyone agrees it's a disease. Alcoholism? I thought the definition of disease when it comes to addiction is when the physical body becomes in need of the chemical? It's just too grey in reality. There are functional alcoholics, people that use it to mask other illnesses, binge drinkers, someone who gets watered up and has a fight at the weekends, mentally dependent, physically dependent and everything in between. Drinking could be a symptom of some other issue. Saying they have a disease at the point of care to raise revenue is going backwards in medicine. I would hope the days of labeling something a disease and offering a cure is long gone. Holistic care is the only way to help people. I appreciate that I'm bias towards mental health care and have some issues with the Doctor lead traditional western medicine that many have. Someone has a broken arm, fine. Get a Doctor to fix it. Someone has a broken mind, it's very very different. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 14, 2018 12:38:04 GMT
"A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. " That's blown your argument, right there. Do you think our ageing process results in such a degree of cynicism? Heh heh. Cynicism or experience?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:38:33 GMT
"A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. " That's blown your argument, right there. Do you think our ageing process results in such a degree of cynicism? It's not cynicism, it's reality. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2018 12:39:32 GMT
For once I have to disagree with you Oldie, may be fine in theory but it won't work in practice once the lawyers challenge it in court. For me it would be better to have cost at the point of impact, so that is taxes on alcohol, tobacco and even things like sugar being ringfenced for NHS use. I would also like to see things like car tax and fuel duty ringfenced for transport. All part of a tax overhaul and open government. If there is a cultural challenge, it is probably closer to home. Stuart I am 100% in favour of hypothecation of taxes, it ensure ministers are held to account. If that happened then I agree with you completely. But I think there is less chance of getting that through Parliament than a charging mechanism. A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. In the meantime, we have an NHS unravelling in front of our eyes. Politicians like to use smoke and mirrors when it comes to public spending, and are known to announce things several times giving a false impression, so I agree it won't happen. What would happen in the Ben Stokes case? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:47:08 GMT
Stuart I am 100% in favour of hypothecation of taxes, it ensure ministers are held to account. If that happened then I agree with you completely. But I think there is less chance of getting that through Parliament than a charging mechanism. A robust and very tightly written policy would also minimise the chance of legal challenge. In the meantime, we have an NHS unravelling in front of our eyes. Politicians like to use smoke and mirrors when it comes to public spending, and are known to announce things several times giving a false impression, so I agree it won't happen. What would happen in the Ben Stokes case? Glad you raise the Ben Stokes case. As I understand it the person(s) he assaulted did not complain so no charge could be brought. He himself sought no medical treatment. So no financial charges could be made. Frustrating...But the jury found him innocent of affect, so be it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 12:50:56 GMT
Alcoholism? I thought the definition of disease when it comes to addiction is when the physical body becomes in need of the chemical? It's just too grey in reality. There are functional alcoholics, people that use it to mask other illnesses, binge drinkers, someone who gets watered up and has a fight at the weekends, mentally dependent, physically dependent and everything in between. Drinking could be a symptom of some other issue. Saying they have a disease at the point of care to raise revenue is going backwards in medicine. I would hope the days of labeling something a disease and offering a cure is long gone. Holistic care is the only way to help people. I appreciate that I'm bias towards mental health care and have some issues with the Doctor lead traditional western medicine that many have. Someone has a broken arm, fine. Get a Doctor to fix it. Someone has a broken mind, it's very very different. Too grey for my liking. How do you define a "functional alcoholic" Someone who drinks much more than the recommended limits but is able hold down a job and maintain home? I cannot see that as a disease....outcomes are chargeable |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 14, 2018 12:57:01 GMT
I'm having a few beers and a couple of cigarettes.
Probably get knocked over by a taxi on the way home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 14, 2018 12:57:35 GMT
It's just too grey in reality. There are functional alcoholics, people that use it to mask other illnesses, binge drinkers, someone who gets watered up and has a fight at the weekends, mentally dependent, physically dependent and everything in between. Drinking could be a symptom of some other issue. Saying they have a disease at the point of care to raise revenue is going backwards in medicine. I would hope the days of labeling something a disease and offering a cure is long gone. Holistic care is the only way to help people. I appreciate that I'm bias towards mental health care and have some issues with the Doctor lead traditional western medicine that many have. Someone has a broken arm, fine. Get a Doctor to fix it. Someone has a broken mind, it's very very different. Too grey for my liking. How do you define a "functional alcoholic" Someone who drinks much more than the recommended limits but is able hold down a job and maintain home? I cannot see that as a disease....outcomes are chargeable Exactly my point! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 13:00:10 GMT
I'm having a few beers and a couple of cigarettes. Probably get knocked over by a taxi on the way home. Um...err.....what road will you be walking down? Just asking for a friend. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 14, 2018 13:05:15 GMT
I'm having a few beers and a couple of cigarettes. Probably get knocked over by a taxi on the way home. Um...err.....what road will you be walking down? Just asking for a friend. Yea, you, friend. Pfft. |
|
