MemphisE34a Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Never argue with an idiot, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. - unknown Yes, I know what you mean. I have learned my lesson. Thanks for your support.
akroeze Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I must say I'm disappointed with the number of ad hominems in this thread when there is such potential for it to be an intelligent discussion.
Dustdevil Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 It is not the fault of firefighters, fire departments, or paramedics working there that national standards are too low if that is even indeed the case. There were several other generalizations made as well, but it is not worth rehashing them. I believe you are smarter than to actually believe that. There are two, and only two factors holding EMS educational standards down in this country today. They are the fire service and volunteers. Were it not for those two lobbies showing up at every committee and demanding that standards not be raised outside of their easy grasp, EMS would have become a degreed profession -- like every single other medical provider in the nation -- years ago. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but you are only fooling yourself, because the facts cannot be disputed. The IAFF and IAFC want EMS, but only if they don't have to commit too much to it. I suppose you have never been on any state or national educational committees. I, and others here, have. We've seen the crying and whining from the fire representatives that they cannot afford to send their people to two to four years of college to be paramedics. That they don't need all that book learnin' just to start IVs. If you don't see that as holding standards artificially low, then you simply aren't looking. Answer these questions: 1. If given the choice of becoming a single-role paramedic for the rest of your career, at the same pay rate, would you do it, or would you return to fire? What about the majority of the medics you work with? 2. If told you had to obtain a college degree and professional licence to remain a paramedic -- on your own time and expense -- would you do it? 3. Would you support (and not obstruct) the elevation of a national standard requiring a professional college degree as the educational entry level for EMS practice, even if it meant you could no longer be a paramedic? Even if it meant that your department would have to give up EMS to another entity? 4. Would you fight for your department to take over the water department functions from the city water department? After all, delivering water is pretty much the fire department's only business, isn't it? You guys could learn to dig ditches, fit pipes, and set hydrants a lot easier, and a lot more cheaply, than you could obtain a quality paramedic education, couldn't you? And, unlike EMS, the water department actually turns a profit. You could be real heroes to the taxpayers! 5. Would you oppose the water department taking over fire suppression duties, and putting you out of a job? After all, how often do we really need fire suppression, and how hard is it? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have someone whose full-time vocation is justified to be providing the lesser needed fire services on an as-needed basis? That would save the city more money than any fire-EMS proposal ever had. 6. Would you oppose the fire EMS service to also take over all non-emergency ambulance provision within your city? After all, if you want to save the city money, why not do the function that actually provides an income? Why not provide that safety margin for those patients who are not receiving advanced assessment and care? I think I know the answer to all of those questions. No, you would not be willing to go back to college to maintain your paramedic certification. In fact, if you were able to give it up and keep your job, you and most of your co-workers would do so in a heartbeat. No, you would not support the fire department taking over the water department or non-emergency ambulance services. That's not heroic or glorious enough for you. Even though the water department has a lot more in common with the fire service than EMS does, that's just not cool. It's too much like manual labour for you. You're a smart dude, but you've bought into a lot of conventional wisdom hype put out there by the political arms of the IAFF and IAFC that really is nothing more than propaganda with no basis in factual reality. The bottom line is, it's not about quality EMS to you. It's simply about justifying the existence of the fire service, as cheaply as possible, in an era where such justification comes hard.
VentMedic Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 No, you would not be willing to go back to college to maintain your paramedic certification. In fact, if you were able to give it up and keep your job, you and most of your co-workers would do so in a heartbeat. He first needs to get a Paramedic certification. Not having a Paramedic cert to even give up would not fly in the many FDs that do EMS especially if you wanted the rank of lieutenant.
EMS49393 Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Yes, I know what you mean. I have learned my lesson. Thanks for your support. Wow, I didn't give you near the credit you deserve. You have called several of us delusional, when you just proved that you are the delusional one. You think everyone is on your big, bad fireman side. I'm a paramedic, I don't support the fire department. If you had read my initial posts on this subject, you would have seen that I don't need the fire department, and I've been known to kick them off my scene. In my humble opinion, there are too many of you. It's time these major cities wise up and start putting the money where it belongs, in the EMS that never sees a hot meal or a chair outside of the truck most shifts. If 80% of 911 calls are EMS calls, then 80% of the public safety fund should go to us, period. You need to get off your ego trip already.
MemphisE34a Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Wow, I didn't give you near the credit you deserve. You have called several of us delusional, when you just proved that you are the delusional one. You think everyone is on your big, bad fireman side. I'm a paramedic, I don't support the fire department. If you had read my initial posts on this subject, you would have seen that I don't need the fire department, and I've been known to kick them off my scene. In my humble opinion, there are too many of you. It's time these major cities wise up and start putting the money where it belongs, in the EMS that never sees a hot meal or a chair outside of the truck most shifts. If 80% of 911 calls are EMS calls, then 80% of the public safety fund should go to us, period. You need to get off your ego trip already. I knew exactly what you meant, but it was too aeasy an opportunity to get a rise out of you. Your last paragraph shows how out of touch you are. Like I said before, I do not argue that EMS should have all the people, all the ambulances, all the tools and equipment, and all the training needed to be as good as you want to be. It should not be done however at the expense of other services no matter what the service is you try to cut. I highly suspect that after the reduction of 80% of the fire department, you would be the first to file a lawsuit because your house burnt to the ground because it took 25 minutes for the fire department to get there. I am not against you dude. I am against they way you are trying to get there.
sirduke Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 [i am not against you dude. I am against they way you are trying to get there. Isn't this the same guy that busted my chops for an alleged misspelling? Should this not be "the" way you are trying to get there? Sorry, but you opened the door big guy...
Dustdevil Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 I highly suspect that after the reduction of 80% of the fire department, you would be the first to file a lawsuit because your house burnt to the ground because it took 25 minutes for the fire department to get there. We already have people waiting ridiculous amounts of time for an ambulance because EMS funds were instead spent on fire trucks. Considering that very, very few people ever actually need a fire truck in their entire lifetime, I'm thinking the odds of your scenario are a lot less likely than what we have now. And let's not forget how much faster those trucks could get to fires now if they weren't so often tied up on EMS runs they have no business on. The statistics are against you on this argument. The IAFF would do well to hire a mathematician or two.
MemphisE34a Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Isn't this the same guy that busted my chops for an alleged misspelling? Should this not be "the" way you are trying to get there? Sorry, but you opened the door big guy... touche!
Dustdevil Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 I give the guy props for not trying to correct my spelling yet, like so many nimrods do.
Recommended Posts