Forget your one phone call from jail. Castle Hills city leaders unanimously passed an ordinance that says you get one free phone call for EMT help once a year. It's called the First Responder's Fee. If you call 911 and EMT's respond to your house more than once in the same year, you'll be charged a $55 fine. City leaders say the goal is to recover some of the response costs, and to stop the overuse of the system.
Castle Hills EMT's contract with San Antonio EMS, and council members also blame needing the fee on the rising costs of those contracts. The city budgeted $215,000 in EMS fees to San Antonio for the current fiscal year. The Castle HIlls EMT's act as the first responders. The city says it needs help to pay for the cost of providing that service call.
One council member raised concerns the new ordinance would stop those on a limited income for calling for help even if they really needed it. But the ordinance passed unanimously.
The one free call does not include calling for police help or if you have an active fire.
In other words, if you live in Castle Hills and need to get EMTs to your house, unless you've got a fire going on, fuck you, you're paying.
There's a lot more I could say about this, but it goes without saying how utterly fucking ridiculous this is.
Forget your one phone call from jail. Castle Hills city leaders unanimously passed an ordinance that says you get one free phone call for EMT help once a year. It's called the First Responder's Fee. If you call 911 and EMT's respond to your house more than once in the same year, you'll be charged a $55 fine. City leaders say the goal is to recover some of the response costs, and to stop the overuse of the system.
Castle Hills EMT's contract with San Antonio EMS, and council members also blame needing the fee on the rising costs of those contracts. The city budgeted $215,000 in EMS fees to San Antonio for the current fiscal year. The Castle HIlls EMT's act as the first responders. The city says it needs help to pay for the cost of providing that service call.
One council member raised concerns the new ordinance would stop those on a limited income for calling for help even if they really needed it. But the ordinance passed unanimously.
The one free call does not include calling for police help or if you have an active fire.
In other words, if you live in Castle Hills and need to get EMTs to your house, unless you've got a fire going on, fuck you, you're paying.
There's a lot more I could say about this, but it goes without saying how utterly fucking ridiculous this is.
It is, but better a $55 fine than Evansville, Wisconsin's $500 fee for fire runs.
I found that information while trying to look up what it costs here in Evansville, Indiana.
I never did find that information, but I suspect an Ambulance/EMT call costs a lot as my health insurance will cover all of it but a $75 copay.
Though at least we don't charge for fire runs like the Evansville in Wisconsin does.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
My department on average responds to at least a couple hundred bullshit non-emergency, non-criminal 911 calls a month. I'd say if an investigation reveals that you were trying to use the police, EMT, etc for your own personal needs and no medical, criminal, or safety matter exists then you should pay.
The system that the OP describes sounds a bit too extreme.
Don't you have to pay a good amount for EMT help already? I mean AFAIK, $55 dollars is going to be a drop in the bucket if you have to take a ride in an ambulance. Seeing as how this is only for medical emergencies (if I understand the OP correctly) then that's what it amounts to.
Coyote: Warm it in the microwave first to avoid that 'necrophelia' effect.
Lord Relvenous wrote:Don't you have to pay a good amount for EMT help already? I mean AFAIK, $55 dollars is going to be a drop in the bucket if you have to take a ride in an ambulance. Seeing as how this is only for medical emergencies (if I understand the OP correctly) then that's what it amounts to.
No, it's for 911 calls where they send an ambulance. Not necessarily a medical emergency, since occasionally you'll get a call from a kid who skinned his knee. The EMTs generally don't give a shit unless they're burned out on the job so they'll give the kid a band-aid and head back to base.
Then of course there's always that old lady that just doesn't have anyone to talk to so she'll call up complaining about shortness of breath, then the EMTs show up and ask about said trouble breathing. "Oh I've had that for years, come back and have tea."
What's wrong with just fining people for spurious use of the service, and fining them hard? This measure pretty much goes against the whole philosophy of emergency services - any situation dire enough to require them shouldn't be one where you first need to consider the financial implications. There are better ways to "stop overuse".
As for recouping costs - that's what taxes are for, not user fees.
Bounty wrote:What's wrong with just fining people for spurious use of the service, and fining them hard? This measure pretty much goes against the whole philosophy of emergency services - any situation dire enough to require them shouldn't be one where you first need to consider the financial implications. There are better ways to "stop overuse".
As for recouping costs - that's what taxes are for, not user fees.
Sounds like some of the extreme anecdotes I used to hear regarding American paramedics frisking a person for a wallet before tending to any injuries. I'm all for fining the hell out of idiot callers who feel an ambulance running its sirens is required for their sore throat, but this system does sound OTT.
For that matter, how will this be charged? Is the bill going to the caller, or the patient, or the person who owned the phone? Is the extra cost of finding out who the hell to bill included in the fee? If it simply bills the line owner, doesn't this add one whopper of a disincentive to people who might otherwise have volunteered the use of their line in an emergency? If you call emergency service while insolvent, have you committed a crime, since you knew you couldn't pay?
Bounty wrote:What's wrong with just fining people for spurious use of the service, and fining them hard? This measure pretty much goes against the whole philosophy of emergency services - any situation dire enough to require them shouldn't be one where you first need to consider the financial implications. There are better ways to "stop overuse".
I'd be surprised if the bill didn't include a provision to waive the fees if it was a genuine emergency. Knowing how news agencies tend to leave out some details if they smell a story it might be prudent to reserve judgment without seeing the bill itself.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Lord Relvenous wrote:Don't you have to pay a good amount for EMT help already? I mean AFAIK, $55 dollars is going to be a drop in the bucket if you have to take a ride in an ambulance. Seeing as how this is only for medical emergencies (if I understand the OP correctly) then that's what it amounts to.
As high as the price may seem, it's barely breaking even for the ambulance companies -- the fees are very tightly regulated at both the federal and state levels, and ambulance companies are required to still provide service to people who don't pay.
Bounty wrote:What's wrong with just fining people for spurious use of the service, and fining them hard?
I'm having flashbacks of an older news story posted here about some great big fat person who called 911 just to move his tubby lard ass to the other side of the bed.
Yeah, frivolous use of emergency services should come with some severe fines.
General Zod wrote:$55 doesn't seem unreasonable. How many people legitimately need EMTs more than once a year anyway?
Well, recently my mom racked up three legitimate ambulance calls in a single month....
In other words, more than you probably realize. While most people need no EMT service at all in a year, there are a significant number who will need at least one, and another percentage needing even more than that. As it happens, those who really do need more than one such call a year will ALSO tend to be those least able to pay.
So... unless there is a willingness to let people in dire circumstances die this will mostly result in a lot of bills that can never be collected because those who owe the money simply do not have it.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
General Zod wrote:$55 doesn't seem unreasonable. How many people legitimately need EMTs more than once a year anyway?
Well, recently my mom racked up three legitimate ambulance calls in a single month....
In other words, more than you probably realize. While most people need no EMT service at all in a year, there are a significant number who will need at least one, and another percentage needing even more than that. As it happens, those who really do need more than one such call a year will ALSO tend to be those least able to pay.
So... unless there is a willingness to let people in dire circumstances die this will mostly result in a lot of bills that can never be collected because those who owe the money simply do not have it.
Like I said above already, I'd be surprised if they didn't include a provision to waive the fee for legitimate calls in the bill.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
People seriously abuse the 911 system. When I was in grad school, there was this old lady who was legendary for making so many spurious noise complaints against various apartments around her that the 911 operators (allegedly) stopped taking her calls.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
I can understand that misuse of emergency service is fined - I'm even going so far as to say that $55 for a prank call or a call without a medical EMERGENCY is too low.
But the source is rather sparse with details.
Do you have to pay the fine even if you were in need of medical assistence more than once a year? Will it be possible/necessary to register as a person who might need EMT more than once a year for that?
Who is fined? The caller, the patient or the phone owner?
"Bring your thousands, I have my axe."
"Bring your cannons, I have my armor."
"Bring your mighty... I am my own champion."
Cue Unit-01 ramming half the Lance of Longinus down Adam's head and a bemused Gendo, "Wrong end, son."
Kamakazie Sith wrote:My department on average responds to at least a couple hundred bullshit non-emergency, non-criminal 911 calls a month. I'd say if an investigation reveals that you were trying to use the police, EMT, etc for your own personal needs and no medical, criminal, or safety matter exists then you should pay.
The system that the OP describes sounds a bit too extreme.
Philadelphia recently introduced the 311 service for all non-emergency calls. It's set up to handle everything from reporting potholes to finding out when the city pools are open.
tezunegari wrote:I can understand that misuse of emergency service is fined - I'm even going so far as to say that $55 for a prank call or a call without a medical EMERGENCY is too low.
But the source is rather sparse with details.
Do you have to pay the fine even if you were in need of medical assistence more than once a year? Will it be possible/necessary to register as a person who might need EMT more than once a year for that?
Who is fined? The caller, the patient or the phone owner?
Not sure. I think that you could logically lobby with the city to be able to continue calling if you require EMT service that much, but I wonder how stubborn they would be in handing that privilege out.
Molyneux wrote:I was under the impression that people paid for these services already. They are called "taxes".
You're correct. People pay taxes so emergency personnel can respond to emergencies, and not so your desire for attention can be satisifed. It reminds me of one lady I dealt with who flat out told us that she would continue to call police until we kicked her ex-husband out of the house. No violence had occurred, and no police presence was necessary. The solution in the OP would discourage abuse of these services.
The solution in the OP would discourage abuse of these services.
No, fining abuse would discourage abuse, and in cases as clear-cut as your example it shouldn't be hard at all to justify the fine. The OP however would discourage legitimate use of emergency services, not to mention add a very sneaky extra cost.
I have a sneaking suspicion important details are left out as well. I mean, I know things are often done differently in America, but fining for frivolous use of emergency services seems like an idea which would be, like, implemented everywhere there are ambulances?
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. - NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
