It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First response to accident scenes now charging for their services?!?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Ambulance charges have long been common and are usually paid by health insurance, but fees for other responders are relatively new. The charge is variously called a “crash tax” or “resource recovery,” depending on one’s point of view. In either case, motorists are billed for services they may have thought were covered by taxpayers.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

I understand ambulance services charging, as they are privately owned. They can charge whatever the market will bear. But fire and police are city and county run! They get paid by the local government, who gets their money from property taxes paid by their residents, and now they are also charging us when responding to accidents or fires?

What's really awesome is that they charge both parties, no matter who is at fault. 26 states are already on board with this. This is madness.

/Q

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Quaght]




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I'd be curious to know what they're doing with all the 9-1-1 medical calls they receive. There is a large population of elderly and disabled who call 911 whenever they have trouble breathing, have chest pains, etc. These people are on fixed incomes (those on SSI get $845 per mo.) How are they going to charge these people? You can't get water from a rock.

?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Uh... we already pay them to protect and serve... Soo, what, now they aren't going to respond?

well that is insubordination, you're fired!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
I'd be curious to know what they're doing with all the 9-1-1 medical calls they receive. There is a large population of elderly and disabled who call 911 whenever they have trouble breathing, have chest pains, etc. These people are on fixed incomes (those on SSI get $845 per mo.) How are they going to charge these people? You can't get water from a rock.

?


Where I live most 911 calls are responded to by the fire department, which is paid by the city. As far as I know my city hasn't started charging for responding to emergencies, but you can bet I'll find out.

/Q



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Quaght
 


If I recall corectly, in the case of an accident, if the vehicles aren't on fire, the medics are the ones in charge, the police are next, then fire. I remember getting in a bad wreck, and police couldn't talk to me until the medic was done, infact the medic got mad at the cops, because the cops didn't like me, and tried talking to me before the medic did. It was odd.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


I had to call 911 twice for my mother two years ago at her home. She had severe COPD and emphysema and both times she passed out with low oxygen levels. Both times Fire and Rescue showed up and took her to the hospital. It's likely different in each city according to how resources are allocated. I do know that, at least in those cases, she was not charged by the FD.

/Q



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I'm a little at a loss here, not because I have nothing to say but because there are variables to consider.

What if you are from out of town and involved in an incident? You obviously haven't payed anything into the local system so should you be charged? If the incident was the fault of a resident of the locale I would say no, as the incident was caused by someone local, who pays local taxes thus supporting the extant system therefore if the "local" is at fault they should bear all expenses similarly to how an insurance company would hold the liable party responsible. And correspondingly, if the incident was found to be caused by someone 'non-local' or outside of the jurisdiction then I would say yes, some charge should be applied to the one at fault just as insurance would hold the liable party responsible.

What if all parties are from 'out of town' and thus all are non-contributing to the locale? I say sure, charge them for the response, but only as much as the locale can legitimately justify charging for since the crew are already on the clock and getting paid. I suppose the only legitimate charge here would be the cost of fuel for the response vehicles to reach the scene and possibly and inconvenience charge if the crew is busy responding to the incident and another incident occurs to which they would otherwise respond to.

And then again, as parties are generally required to pay insurance, perhaps insurance would cover the costs?

But anyhow, these are elected leaders making these policies, emphasis on "ELECTED". If they make bad policies, vote them out and make sure the ones voted in overturn those bad policies.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Quaght
 


well I just know they are supposed to provide help before inquiring if anything illegal was done. Granted he wasnt fleeing from police.

I dont think they should charge more money, thats ridiculous, people need help and that what they are there for...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


A cogent argument, to be sure. However, fire and police get paid when they are on the clock, not only when "something happens". Suppose it's a quiet day, or even a quiet week? Do they get shorted on their paycheck? No, they are still getting paid. Do the residents that didn't require their services get a refund for the FD sitting around all day waiting for an emergency that didn't come? Highly unlikely.

The services that local taxes pay for are there for everyone to use within that city, whether or not they are a resident, with some exceptions (like the local library). Our taxes pay for city water treatment. Does that mean that someone from another city must pay extra to drink from a fountain?

/Q



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
As far as I know the city I live in is not charging for this service and I hope they don't in the future. People on SS and disability could not afford to pay. Surely they would not refuse service if you can't pay. This has always been paid thru taxes and has worked well, why change it



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght
reply to post by abecedarian
 


A cogent argument, to be sure. However, fire and police get paid when they are on the clock, not only when "something happens". Suppose it's a quiet day, or even a quiet week? Do they get shorted on their paycheck? No, they are still getting paid. Do the residents that didn't require their services get a refund for the FD sitting around all day waiting for an emergency that didn't come? Highly unlikely.

The services that local taxes pay for are there for everyone to use within that city, whether or not they are a resident, with some exceptions (like the local library). Our taxes pay for city water treatment. Does that mean that someone from another city must pay extra to drink from a fountain?

/Q


With all due respect, I addressed that in my post.

But if you insist, I will quote you:

The services that local taxes pay for are there for everyone to use within that city, whether or not they are a resident, with some exceptions (like the local library).


local taxes, with some exceptions (like the local library).

What seperates the library from the fire department?

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
As far as I know the city I live in is not charging for this service and I hope they don't in the future. People on SS and disability could not afford to pay. Surely they would not refuse service if you can't pay. This has always been paid thru taxes and has worked well, why change it


Federal law provides for treatment in emergency situations. I.e. a hospital must treat anyone that enters to the extent that the person is stabilized and can be transfered to another facility that can complete the treatment.
In otherwords, a hospital cannot turn you away if you're injured, feel sick or whatever. They do not "have" to fix you up 100%, but just enough so you can go to the next hospital, if necessary.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
So what exactly does our taxes pay for now? If these services arent covered, we dont have universal healthcare, the infrastructure is falling aprt. what is our tax dollars going for exactly. Is it only enough to cover the kick-back Bush and Obama gave to Wall st. and now we are gonna have to foot the bill for things our taxes once paid for. This is frustrating if true, and i just wanna know where our taxes are really going? If its for policing the world then i dont wanna do that either.

[edit on 06/02/2010 by letscit]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
But if you insist, I will quote you:

The services that local taxes pay for are there for everyone to use within that city, whether or not they are a resident, with some exceptions (like the local library).


local taxes, with some exceptions (like the local library).

What seperates the library from the fire department?

Thank you.


The library isn't a life or death service. While it's true that in my city you can check out books, music and video for a fee if you are not a resident (which I just found out with some research) it is a voluntary action to walk into the library and use their services. If an out-of-towner is in an accident that is not their fault, why should they have to pay the city for it?


Originally posted by abecedarian
Federal law provides for treatment in emergency situations. I.e. a hospital must treat anyone that enters to the extent that the person is stabilized and can be transfered to another facility that can complete the treatment.
In otherwords, a hospital cannot turn you away if you're injured, feel sick or whatever. They do not "have" to fix you up 100%, but just enough so you can go to the next hospital, if necessary.


And as a private institution a hospital has the right to charge you for whatever services they provided, as well as turn you over to a collection agency whether or not you have the funds to pay or not. Unfortunately they don't get even a third of the cost of their services back when they have to treat someone in that manner, which, of course, drives up their costs to treat people that CAN pay.

/Q

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Quaght]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght

Originally posted by abecedarian
But if you insist, I will quote you:

The services that local taxes pay for are there for everyone to use within that city, whether or not they are a resident, with some exceptions (like the local library).


local taxes, with some exceptions (like the local library).

What seperates the library from the fire department?

Thank you.


The library isn't a life or death service. While it's true that in my city you can check out books, music and video for a fee if you are not a resident (which I just found out with some research) it is a voluntary action to walk into the library and use their services. If an out-of-towner is in an accident that is not their fault, why should they have to pay the city for it?

/Q


If anyone, local or not, lost a book taken from your public library, who should pay to replace the book?

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


No one should pay, someone will replace that book, its a book. My sister had a fine mailed to her out of no where for 500$ for a book, she had already returned, 1 week after due date. Please... its a book, and if they put an ad in the paper saying they lost such and such book, someone would donate it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by abecedarian
 


No one should pay, someone will replace that book, its a book. My sister had a fine mailed to her out of no where for 500$ for a book, she had already returned, 1 week after due date. Please... its a book, and if they put an ad in the paper saying they lost such and such book, someone would donate it.


Nice to know.

I guess everyone should rest safely now knowing that someone will replace their lost books... right?

You do realize the thread is not about books, right?


[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
If anyone, local or not, lost a book taken from your public library, who should pay to replace the book?

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]


Call me a knucklehead but...the person that lost it? In the absence of the personal responsibility that the person in question lacks, the library, and the city (the taxpayers) eat the cost of the lost book. However, if there is a month of no lost books, we still pay the same amount of taxes. So it appears that the amount paid to the library to keep up its facilities already covers that cost anyway.

/Q



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


someone else brought it up, I'm just answerin the question... I do know, have you read any of my other posts?

oh that was you asking about books... wow, you do know this thread isnt about books right?

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Myendica]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght

Originally posted by abecedarian
If anyone, local or not, lost a book taken from your public library, who should pay to replace the book?

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]


Call me a knucklehead but...the person that lost it? In the absence of the personal responsibility that the person in question lacks, the library, and the city (the taxpayers) eat the cost of the lost book. However, if there is a month of no lost books, we still pay the same amount of taxes. So it appears that the amount paid to the library to keep up its facilities already covers that cost anyway.

/Q


Okay, knucklehead. Yeah, you still pay taxes regardless of the status of that lost book, but if you're the dumbsquat that last checked the book out, meaning basically you lost the book you'll be charged for it.... right?
Or you're implying your library expects one lost book per quarter and the cost of that book is factored into your library's expenses.

And suppose you have a period where 100 books are unaccounted for?

[edit on 9/5/2010 by abecedarian]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join