Interesting

[billygoatpete]

From yesterdays news....

Denver Fire looking to charge for accident responses

Thoughts???

[tskstorm]

This will cause one hell of a poop storm.

[DwayneEMTP]

I'm calling bullshit for a couple of reasons..

First, I believe that they should have to publicly justify their already boated budget before being considered for more money...

Second, who is to represent the drivers in this scenario? This is a bullshit idea as it allows the FD to hold out of state drivers hostage...

Added charge for controlling a fuel spill? Who's to say if it was necessary? We know that soon the argument will be, "Any fuel powered vehicle that has been in a collision has the likelihood of fuel cell compromise making it prudent to place control measures to mitigate the danger to Rescuers, other motorists on the highway, woman and children nationwide, and higher functioning DNA specimens around the world. That seems self evident."

Extra fee for extrication? Define that for me? When Bubba the knuckle dragger jerks my door open with his hands, how much is that extrication going to cost me? And when the door flies open and he falls on his ass, of course requiring him to retire on a medical due to traumatic/emotional damage, how much do I then become responsible for?

If a tax is prudent, it is only prudent if those that will not benefit from the tax are in charge of assessing it.

Not only does attacking only out of state drivers keep them from having to put up with a bunch of shit in their own back yard, but it allows them to hold those drivers hostage for the fee regardless of it's validity. Should these charges be appointed unfairly, how many people will be able to afford to hire a lawyer and travel back to Denver to defend themselves? How long do we really believe before there is a good, solid number that says, "Assess all you want, but not more than X, as we've found that people don't kick and scream below X."

And doesn't the City and/or the fire dept already receive stat/federal funds for the service that they provide on those highways?

I'll tell you what though. I might actually vote for this thing if I never have to see another "I run in where other people run out screaming!" Or "I fight what you fear!" Bullshit tshirt on some fat shithead at Walmart. I probably wouldn't, but it would be a close thing.

My apologies for bagging on fire to our members here that actually think that serving the public as a fireman/woman is an honorable thing and that those being served shouldn't be abused secondary to that service...

And, as always, the comments above are meant in the most biblical, heartfelt spirit possible..

Dwayne

(Dang it. Created this yesterday, got toned out and forgot it. My apologies for redundancies to posts since then.) Edited for formatting bullshit. No contextual changes.

Edited June 4, 2010 by DwayneEMTP

[WolfmanHarris]

Seems to me that if Fire is going to start charging a fee for service, then their funding should reflect that. Private EMS is expected to support themselves on billing. I'm not a fan of fee for service for Fire, nor do I support it for EMS, or Police, or Public Health, etc. BUT, if the citizens of a given community vote clearly to discontinue funding Fire in exchange for a public, non-profit, membership and fee for service, then so be it. That's democracy in action. You can't have it both ways though. That's just gouging the tax payer twice.

[Chief1C]

The consumer, eg the public, see it as, why should everyone pay for one person's misfortune? Well, the services are there for anyone, but I don't see taxation as a well rounded fund raising scheme. They're going to tax the public to death, something that their schools probably already do. Our EMS owns all of the rescue equipment. Local taxes will fund firefighting efforts, but aren't slated for rescue from vehicles, high angle, etc. EMS, in the Commonwealth of PA, can't get tax funding, if they bill patients (that is the law, and if an agency is billing and getting taxes, it's being done illegally). So, we bill patients' insurance, if they need to be rescued. There's a flat fee, all the same, whether you're cut from car, or extracted (yes I meant to use that word) from the wilderness. That equipment is holy expensive, tens of thousands of dollars, expensive. Even if we don't get the full amount of the billed fee, a little each time helps build up for eventual replacement. Five years on hydraulic hoses, ten to twelve years on the tools, not including blades and cutters.

One tax, for the fire service, and it should be so that they can do with it as they please.. As long as it's for equipment and operation, not including morale. They just have to work it into the current budget, and stop saying, well, lets add a couple more mils on to the tax log. That's one way to make the community hate you, cities and small towns alike.

[emtannie]

I'm calling bullshit for a couple of reasons..

First, I believe that they should have to publicly justify their already boated budget before being considered for more money...

Second, who is to represent the drivers in this scenario? This is a bullshit idea as it allows the FD to hold out of state drivers hostage...

……..

If a tax is prudent, it is only prudent if those that will not benefit from the tax are in charge of assessing it.

Dwayne, as usual, you have effectively already voiced what I am sure many of us are thinking.

I tried to go to the Denver Fire Department site, but I kept getting a “Server is too busy” message. I wanted to see if there was any budgetary information to see where they are spending their money.

I like the part of the article that states that insurance companies feel this is a hidden, backdoor tax. All this will do is cause higher premiums for consumers to cover the cost of this fee.

Unfortunately, firefighting seems to be one of those sacred cows that municipalities are all too often willing to throw money at, regardless of fiscal responsibility.

[tskstorm]

I have a unique point of view here.

For extrication or gaining entry into an apartment we have 2 choices. NYPD Emergency Services Unit or FDNY ENG company. It isn't an option actually but we make it one. If we call over our radio for extrication/entry we automatically get FDNY ENG. If we ask the officers on scene to call they will get NYPD ESU.

So if FDNY were to try this there call volume would drop and ESU's would go instantaneously up. I would go out of my way to make sure FDNY wasn't getting paid.

However there would then be a strain on NYPD's ESU units. Now the city would have to pour money into NYPD budget, and if you know anything about NYC policies and budgets FDNY is the last to get cut. It would just cause much chaos here.

In general this just sounds like a bad idea.