Pay for service firefighters?

Darat said:
Couldn't the town folk get together, pool their money and employ a fire-fighting team? You'd probably want to have someone responsible for representing the town-folk interests?Perhaps the town folk could ask for volunteers for that role and use an election system to select one of the volunteers to be their representative?
Click to expand...

I don't know, that sounds a bit socialist to me. Don't think it would work in the US.
 
Ryokan said:
Are there any other places in the Western World except USA where you would have to pay for getting an ambulance?
Click to expand...


I don't know what the situation now is in the province (Ontario), but way back in 1994 when I took a (spectacular) spill off my bicycle and needed an ambulance ride to the hospital, I got a bill later for about $40. That was the only direct cost I had to pay.
 
Travis said:
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.
Click to expand...
No Travis, this works by people purchasing fire protection yearly. No department could survive, especially in a small town, by billing people after the fact. You bill after the fact if you decide to make a policy of putting out fires for penny-pinching self-absobed jerks who refuse to buy the protection. But I'd guess the payment rate is quite low on these bills, so everyone else subsidizes the jerks. Which is why a policy of letting them burn smells like justice to me.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
No Travis, this works by people purchasing fire protection yearly. No department could survive, especially in a small town, by billing people after the fact. You bill after the fact if you decide to make a policy of putting out fires for penny-pinching self-absobed jerks who refuse to buy the protection. But I'd guess the payment rate is quite low on these bills, so everyone else subsidizes the jerks. Which is why a policy of letting them burn smells like justice to me.
Click to expand...

If the fire burned only jerks or their property, I might agree with you.

Like vaccinations, fire protection relies partly on a dynamic similar to herd immunity.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that this does not work. Ambulances are legally required to respond and transport to the hospital if you call 911, then you just ignore the bill and call again.
 
WildCat said:
No Travis, this works by people purchasing fire protection yearly.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it should be through taxes, IMO. If people have a chance to opt out, others people's lives may be endangered.
 
The whole idea is as stupid as smoking in the powder magazine. Government is supposed to exist to provide the neccessary services to preeserve the public order and safety.

Tell the soory little Republicon whiners to raise the damned taxes and do what government is supposed to do. We tried private, fee-for-service and subscription fire departments.

It didn't work. (But I would bet that the proponents of this idea are right-wingers or Libertarian whackos who consider themselves historians.)

The best way to cover the exposures around a burning structure is to extinguish the damned fire and don't worry about who is going to pay for it. These ideas are never put forward by anybody with a clue about fire science or the history of fire fighting in America, or the thoughts of the Founding Fathers on the matter.

Next, the fools may even decide they need more contract police services and contractor-operated jails to save tax money.

As for that private hospital, it should be against the law for them to accept any money whatsoever, even as a fee-for-service, from any government operation. Private hospitals make as much sense as private jails.
 
leftysergeant said:
Next, the fools may even decide they need more contract police services and contractor-operated jails to save tax money.

As for that private hospital, it should be against the law for them to accept any money whatsoever, even as a fee-for-service, from any government operation. Private hospitals make as much sense as private jails.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that hit close to home. Remember how I said I'm living in California? The state with the huge jail overcrowding problem?

Well rather than try to figure out what is causing so many prisoners (I'll give you three chances to figure that one out) they are looking to outsource the prison system.

But let's save that for another thread, it could seriously derail us here.
 
And let's not overlook what firefighter's do for a living. Sure there may be downtime now and again. But you know what they do on a busy day? They run into burning buildings. If that doesn't deserve a decent wage nothing does.

I'd let the town know that they can keep their somewhat lower tax rate. I choose to live somewhere that people's safety means something.
 
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...


Wow!

I have a storage unit that was recently burglarized along with almost a dozen more. Management at the facility had a pretty good idea who it was and had them on camera and even had their cars license plate. After doing all the police reports etc weeks later nothings been done an officer hasnt even been assigned to the case and the reason I was given was budget cuts. Really sucks
 
I think a lot of the problem could be solved by legalizing and taxing weed. Less business but more money for the jail. (The publicly-owned. Screw the commercial jails.)

Also, raise greens fees on publicly-owned golf courses and tax the private ones a lttle more heavily to cover environmental mitigation costs. Problem solved.
 
COLONEL said:
Find out if they recieve any money from the GOVT. if they do, by law they have to treat you whether or not you can pay . Turn them into the GOVT. if you find out they are recieving taxpayers dollars.
Click to expand...

And yet they keep turning people away like they turned me away several years ago when I needed Rabies prophylaxis and they wanted $1,700 up front for it. Now their ER will treat you (and charge you a fortune) if you are obviously going to die without immediate treatment but for anything else you are out of luck.

ponderingturtle said:
Except that this does not work. Ambulances are legally required to respond and transport to the hospital if you call 911, then you just ignore the bill and call again.
Click to expand...

And yet when my friend called for an ambulance a few months ago for his girlfriend they told him to take a hike because she still owed money for a previous use (girlfriend kept trying to kill herself necessitating several hospital trips).
 
Travis said:
And yet they keep turning people away like they turned me away several years ago when I needed Rabies prophylaxis and they wanted $1,700 up front for it. Now their ER will treat you (and charge you a fortune) if you are obviously going to die without immediate treatment but for anything else you are out of luck.



And yet when my friend called for an ambulance a few months ago for his girlfriend they told him to take a hike because she still owed money for a previous use (girlfriend kept trying to kill herself necessitating several hospital trips).
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that if you call 911 they have to treat you by law? Or am i missing something?
 
They sure aren't acting like that is the law if it is. Then again I'm not sure my friend dialed 911. I just know that he ended up on the phone with the ambulance people trying to get them to pick up his girlfriend (they did eventually pick her up but they weren't happy about it).
 
gnome said:
If the fire burned only jerks or their property, I might agree with you.

Like vaccinations, fire protection relies partly on a dynamic similar to herd immunity.
Click to expand...
As we saw before, they will protect adjacent properties that paid.
 
Lothian said:
I wonder if it will lead to rival service providers. Would you pay for a fire truck and 5 fire men with a ladder to get a cat down from a tree when a kid with an air rifle would be so much cheaper?
Click to expand...

Set fire to the tree, that will bring the firefighters. They're fire elementals, you have to summon them with their element.
 
Emet said:
I agree, but it should be through taxes, IMO.
Click to expand...
Ideally, yes. But if it's not, what's the best policy for the fire dept.? If they decide to put out all fires whether or not people pay most likely fewer and fewer people will pay, putting the very survival of the FD at risk.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
As we saw before, they will protect adjacent properties that paid.
Click to expand...

Indeed, what could possibly go wrong with allowing a house to be completely engulfed in flames and to start burning nearby fences before attempting to stop it spreading to another property?
 
stokes234 said:
Indeed, what could possibly go wrong with allowing a house to be completely engulfed in flames and to start burning nearby fences before attempting to stop it spreading to another property?
Click to expand...
The fire department will stop it from spreading, assuming the adjacent property is paid up. If not, sucks to be a cheap-ass libertard. Now they have the freedom to live in a tent next to their burned-out house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom