Without regard to the philisophical aspects of the extent of state welfare, such a clause would be unworkable. How could you fairly determine the cause of healt

Without regard to the philisophical aspects of the extent of state welfare, such a clause would be unworkable. How could you fairly determine the cause of health issues? If one gets completely drunk, stumbles onto a road and is hit by a car, you could say that intoxication caused the accident. Would you refuse to treat that person's injuries - which are themselves nothing to do with alcohol - due to that? What about if there was a very bad unmarked pothole which caused the person to trip, a hazard that exists regardless of intoxication? All these questions could be resolved with litigation using many of the same processes that the courts already have. However, I would wager that the state would spend as much additional money on the judiciary as they would simply providing an unconditional paramedic service in the first place! This also applies to financial situations, because it's hard to, say, confidently ascribe the failure of someone's life savings on a supposedly poor choice they made while under the influence of a drug. I personally think it would be inhumane not to provide a safety net, but it would also be considerably cheaper to!