• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pay for service firefighters?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
We're having a debate, locally, about whether our firefighters should become a pay for service outfit. Under this deal the fire department would bill anyone they help for the cost of whatever they did.

Needless to say this is not too popular but a lot of politicians promised cuts in property taxes and the money has to come from somewhere. They've already gutted the parks department so several county parks are now sitting fallow, growing weeds and collecting trash. But that doesn't quite get the budget to where it will be after the cuts are instituted. So then this idea for the fire department came up though it's just a rumor for the moment. Though people are talking an awful lot about the rumor.

We already have a similar arrangement with the local ambulance company who will take you to a hospital and then send you a huge bill for it. But a lot of people are complaining about how poorer people now take stupid risks to drive themselves to a hospital to avoid that huge ambulance bill. So the dissatisfaction with that leads me to believe this will never actually be done with the fire department.

So.....how does anyone else feel about that type of arrangement for emergency services? Do you think it could work in the long run or is it even crazy to talk about it?

For the record I'm against it as I was for when they started doing it for the ambulances.
 
It might make sense for the state/town whatever as a whole, if it shifts the cost from the taxpayer to the individual. However, that individual is going to get screwed, and since they were already going to get screwed by the fire, that person is going to be in severe financial straits. You'll basically be throwing individuals under the bus so that the many can pay fewer taxes.

Unless of course, everyone gets fire insurance. But the fire service isn't exactly the prime spot for competition - you don't want to be haggling over the prices as your house burns down as they did in Ancient Rome, and without competition there's no real reason for the private industry to do anything cheaper than the public sector, especially after factoring in costs like advertising.

There's also the dangers of fires spreading if people refuse to pay, etc. All in all, it's a terrible idea, but if you're feeling lucky with a dash of "every man for himself", you could benefit.
 
I am also against it. I can see people refusing to call 911 when their house is on fire, because they cannot afford to pay the fees. People will try to fight the fire themselves, and people will lose their lives. It is NOT worth it.

Plus, you would never be able to recover the costs. I've done the math recently, and an average house fire with 2 engines with 4 crewman each, 1 supervisor, and 1 ambulance with 2 crew working at a fire scene for 2 hours (average on scene time) would cost around 2,500 dollars. That is not even enough to pay one firefighters salary for one month.

If a department has only 5 structure fires in a month, you haven't even covered one station's cost of operation.

It's a lose-lose battle. All you do is alienate the public.

PLUS, not to mention the cost of billing people.

It's a lost cause.
 
Last edited:
Part of this is that we've had a rash of fires started by meth labs lately. This has created the impression amongst some that only "bad" people have fires and just being a "good" person means you are safe.
 
There was a story a few months ago (apologies, I wish I could find it, I believe there's a video too) where some some guy chose not to pay the annual fee. If I remember correctly, it wasn't much, on the order of a few hundred bucks. Lo and behold, his house catches on fire. The fire department came out to make sure that the fire didn't spread to the neighboring properties, but didn't make any attempt to put out the fire, even though the guy said he would pay right then and there. I can't remember what state it was, I believe it was somewhere in the south.

While it makes sense on paper (not paying for services you're not using), I feel like it's a lose-lose for everyone involved. Departments don't get their funding, and most people probably wouldn't pay the fees because not many people ever call the fire department. I've only called them once and that was because of a gas leak.
 
I am on a Volunteer dept. and we get paid to go to the fires . Our town will bill your insurance company . Isurance companies will usually pay because in the long run if we save you house it saves them money
 
just makes me thing of Terry Pratchett's comment on the fledgling fire service in Ankh-Morpork.

It basically consisted of lots of men wandering around making comments on how flammable people's houses and businesses looked.
 
Worm said:
just makes me thing of Terry Pratchett's comment on the fledgling fire service in Ankh-Morpork.

It basically consisted of lots of men wandering around making comments on how flammable people's houses and businesses looked.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the fire service that was a fledgling. It was that Twoflower had introduced Ankh-Morpork to the concept of In-Sewer-Ants, with the predictable AM results.
 
triforcharity said:
I am also against it. I can see people refusing to call 911 when their house is on fire, because they cannot afford to pay the fees. People will try to fight the fire themselves, and people will lose their lives. It is NOT worth it.

Plus, you would never be able to recover the costs. I've done the math recently, and an average house fire with 2 engines with 4 crewman each, 1 supervisor, and 1 ambulance with 2 crew working at a fire scene for 2 hours (average on scene time) would cost around 2,500 dollars. That is not even enough to pay one firefighters salary for one month.

If a department has only 5 structure fires in a month, you haven't even covered one station's cost of operation.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the department would be funded to a degree but only enough to keep fire equipment on hand and a skeleton staff in place. Basically the minute any fires happen they would go over budget and the bills would be to make up the difference.

One potential hurdle for this would be wildfires, common around here in the summer, where huge tracts of government owned land is on fire.
 
Travis said:
As I understand it the department would be funded to a degree but only enough to keep fire equipment on hand and a skeleton staff in place. Basically the minute any fires happen they would go over budget and the bills would be to make up the difference.

One potential hurdle for this would be wildfires, common around here in the summer, where huge tracts of government owned land is on fire.
Click to expand...

Is the land local, state or Federal? as long as its not local, its not a problem. The city just bills the state or Feds to put out the fire on thier land.

FYI. I would love to be a fly on the wall when the feds get notified that the local city is going to let the wildfire burn because they refuse to pay for fire service.
 
Fire Departments Charge for Service, Asking Accident Victims to Pay Up
Feb. 4, 2010

It came in the mail less than a month after Darline Fairchild watched her family's home go up in flames -- a bill for the nearly $28,000 it cost the fire department to extinguish the blaze.
(...)
Already banned in several states, the practice of charging to respond to house fires and car accidents -- dubbed a "crash tax" or an "accident tax" -- has horrified victims and earned the ire of insurance lobbyists who say their member companies are being targeted to make up for budget shortfalls.

"Part of the sales tactic when municipalities consider this is, 'Hey, don't worry, it's going to go to insurance,'" Jon Zarich, director of government affairs for the Insurance Institute of Indiana, told ABCNews.com. "But it's the homeowner that's responsible once coverage runs out."
(...)
Insurance Companies Fight Back Against Third-Party Vendors

Zarich said his organization is familiar with the billing company that sent out the Fairchilds' bill. Most municipalities and fire districts across the country that have turned to these types of service charges contract with billing companies who then take a cut of the collections.

But Emergency Services Billing Corporation, Zarich charged, has been grossly inflating charges on behalf of their clients. In the last 18 months, the institute's member companies have reporting seeing their average fire service charges go from $300 to $400 to between $2,000 and $5,000, Zarich said.

Indiana's state fire marshal lists appropriate service charges as up to $250 for a vehicle response and up to $150 for each hour of assistance, but Zarich said ESBC's estimates are almost always higher. ESBC's Web site doesn't list specific rates, but advertises it's own rate policy based on charges for every 15 minutes a fire department's equipment and personnel are on scene, with the fees taking an emergency responder's rank into consideration.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fire...-horrify-residents-insurance/story?id=9736696
 
The insurance companies will love it. They will jack everyone's rates up to cover the added cost they'll be footing for the people who do have fires.
 
cwalner said:
Is the land local, state or Federal? as long as its not local, its not a problem. The city just bills the state or Feds to put out the fire on thier land.

FYI. I would love to be a fly on the wall when the feds get notified that the local city is going to let the wildfire burn because they refuse to pay for fire service.
Click to expand...

Some is local, some is state and some is federal. It would really be a billing nightmare.


My biggest concern is that we'll see a repeat of the ambulance situation where people start avoiding calling in emergencies because they're afraid the dispatcher will send an ambulance they can't afford. People are really going out of their way to either drive themselves to the hospital or getting someone else to drive them.
 
Travis said:
We already have a similar arrangement with the local ambulance company who will take you to a hospital and then send you a huge bill for it. But a lot of people are complaining about how poorer people now take stupid risks to drive themselves to a hospital to avoid that huge ambulance bill. So the dissatisfaction with that leads me to believe this will never actually be done with the fire department.
Click to expand...

But there is a very positive element in the ambulance example.

Individuals, having to pay the full cost of the ambulance visit, must choose to use it or not. As you say, people are choosing not to use it. That frees up those crewmen from having to respond to incidents where patients called simply because they don't experience the cost of their actions. That means that when someone does feel the ambulance is worth it, the ambulance is more likely available.

Maybe the same could happen with fire departments. It is a public good and natural monopoly in economics which tends to promote government support through taxation. The answer is based on what goals you value more. However, if you pay an ethicist 50K for 6 months to analyze your values, then pay me 200K for a two year study, and can answer what strategy you should favor given your beliefs. The answer may surprise you.
 
As one who's been in the public-service area for many years (police) I think it's a spectacularly bad idea for the reasons listed.
Such protective services are part of the "price of doing business" in a civilized society. Now, some areas have a sort of "subscription fee" for fire services, where homeowners contribute a small annual fee to be included in the fire protection district... I can see that to some degree.
However, we had a scandal locally where a municipal fire department responded to a non-subscribed residence and let it burn to the ground. The owner even offered to pay the fee on the spot.... No stamp, no firefighting.
The owner's complaint was that they had recently moved into the city and were unaware of the program....
Just the other day, emergency responders called to the scene of a potential suicide-by-drowning refused to go into the water after the individual. The reason? They had been prohibited from doing water rescues as a cost-cutting measure.
 
Travis said:
As I understand it the department would be funded to a degree but only enough to keep fire equipment on hand and a skeleton staff in place. Basically the minute any fires happen they would go over budget and the bills would be to make up the difference.

One potential hurdle for this would be wildfires, common around here in the summer, where huge tracts of government owned land is on fire.
Click to expand...

That is another excellent point. Fighting a wildfire, or brush fire, can be very time consuming, and sometimes last days, if not weeks.

Who pays for that?

Either way, it's a losing option. People should not have to worry about if the fire department will save their house or not.
 
Bikewer said:
As one who's been in the public-service area for many years (police) I think it's a spectacularly bad idea for the reasons listed.
Such protective services are part of the "price of doing business" in a civilized society. Now, some areas have a sort of "subscription fee" for fire services, where homeowners contribute a small annual fee to be included in the fire protection district... I can see that to some degree.
However, we had a scandal locally where a municipal fire department responded to a non-subscribed residence and let it burn to the ground. The owner even offered to pay the fee on the spot.... No stamp, no firefighting.
The owner's complaint was that they had recently moved into the city and were unaware of the program....
Just the other day, emergency responders called to the scene of a potential suicide-by-drowning refused to go into the water after the individual. The reason? They had been prohibited from doing water rescues as a cost-cutting measure.
Click to expand...

I hate to be the ******* here, but those scenarios really don't answer the big question if they should have happened or not. Those may be efficient accidents. We accept some traffic deaths for the benefit of driving 55mph or faster. These are likely knife-edge cases. Maybe the regulations do benefit us in the long term and making exceptions for these incidents would hurt society as a whole.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
To properly mask profanity. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom