Debate: Should Fire Depts. Charge to rescue you?

[DawnCt1]

The chief of the Hartford Fire Dept. is proposing charging for rescues. If they have to respond with certain equipment, haz mat gets involved, etc. The chief wants to bill the insurance companies if they have to respond. I could certainly understand that if someone violated the law in a blatant way; for instance repelled down the side of a skyscraper and got stuck and couldn't get down, etc. But, if you are in a car accident, there is a gasoline spill and you are stuck in your auto, should you or your insurance company have to incurr the expense? I thought police and fire protection is what we all pay property taxes for? Even those people who live in Greenwich, Glastonbury, Avon, and commute into Hartford pay a large amount of money into the state, which reimburses the towns and cities, so they indirectly pay taxes to those cities and subsidize police and fire depts. If insurance companies get billed, the insurance companies aren't going to suffer, the insured will. Those rates will go up, not just for those who were billed but for everyone to offset future "rescues". Its another tax. The Fire Dept. is on duty and gets paid whether they respond to a fire or not. So what is up with an additional fee?
What's next? Your house catches on fire, they ask you if you want water or foam and you ask which is cheaper?? Or send me 5 fire fighters and not your usual 8.

 

[Chicago526]

I agree, I can see it for when people or companies do stupid or illegal stuff. But for just everyday "poop happens" type situations, well, that's what we pay taxes for.

 

[cardaway]

If there was negligence that caused the fire, or something illegal going on, I think there should be a penalty. I feel the same way about the risk takers that have to be rescued.

For the typical fire, no.

 

[CheshireVal]

I don't think it's very fair, but.... you do have to pay for ambulances to come in and rescue you. I guess it would be no different, really, for the fire dept. But it still seems wrong!

 

[In a hurry]

If there was negligence that caused the fire, or something illegal going on, I think there should be a penalty. I feel the same way about the risk takers that have to be rescued.

For the typical fire, no.

I agree. Our taxes already pay for the fire department. Maybe if it is a volunteer FD, it would be appropriate to bill for transport, if you are using the FD as an ambulance.

 

[Disney Doll]

I wouldn't have a problem, if someone called in an intentional false alarm, for them to charge. Or if a fire was set intentionally to collect insurance or something like that.

 

[gris gris]

I don't necessarily think it's fair, but if it was determined you were the cause of the car wreck and you damaged a guard rail or knocked down a telephone pole, you (or your insurance co.) gets charged for that. What's the difference between damaging a guard rail vs. damaging the road/environment/river with fluids from your car?

Since you live in CT you must remember the story in Old Saybrook where the man and his mother in law were eating lunch at the point and HE stepped on his gas pedal and HE made his car go into the river. His MIL was rescued by VOLUNTEERS! Volunteers who put their life on the line to dive into that water and rescue her. And now they are suing the town, the PD, FD & ambulance. So I guess the next time the FD & ambulance respond to a life/death situation they must have to ask "if I save you, are you going to sue me"?

 

[DawnCt1]

What's the difference between damaging a guard rail vs. damaging the road/environment/river with fluids from your car?

Since you live in CT you must remember the story in Old Saybrook where the man and his mother in law were eating lunch at the point and HE stepped on his gas pedal and HE made his car go into the river. His MIL was rescued by VOLUNTEERS! Volunteers who put their life on the line to dive into that water and rescue her. And now they are suing the town, the PD, FD & ambulance. So I guess the next time the FD & ambulance respond to a life/death situation they must have to ask "if I save you, are you going to sue me"?

The difference is, the telephone poles are private property and they belong to the power company and thus is covered by your liability insurance. We already are paying the fire departments to respond to emergencies, they are there, why should there be a surcharge. It doesn't matter if a driver is found at fault because "at fault" doesn't mean deliberate or intentional. I don't remember the case that you are talking about in Old Saybrook but in Ct. we do have a Good Samaritan Law in which volunteers are protected from negligence suits, so I don't think that they have a very good chance of recovering money, at least from the volunteers. If the Fire Dept are paid responders, then they should also be well trained responders so if there was a problem with malpractice and it was due to significant negligence, than why should they be protected from suit. That is why towns and cities carry insurance.

 

[golfgal]

I don't think it's very fair, but.... you do have to pay for ambulances to come in and rescue you. I guess it would be no different, really, for the fire dept. But it still seems wrong!

Our ambulance service is not owned by our city though. It is owned by a hospital and it is a for profit company so it is not the same. The fire department is part of our city and is paid for through our property taxes. If they charged for each service, we would be double paying for the fire department. My guess is that it is probably unconstitutional according to local or state constitutions to charge for fire/police service, but I don't know for sure.

 

[Anthony1971]

Bill the mayor and take it out of my Taxes......
That is Ridiculous
Not at what mosst people pay for taxes.....
I could rent an apartmnet in most states for what I pay a month...

 

[RadioFanatic]

maybe it would make taxes go down. and if you think about it, say you cut your finger with a knife and go to the hospital, the hospital is going to charge you and the insurance company. they're not going to say, well, we won't charge you since it was just an accident - could be the same thing in this situation.

 

[Am_I_There_Yet]

I disagree with fire departments charging.

With that said, my DH has responded to calls so insane, that they need to have a "stupid people charge".

 

[MarkeyMouse]

We have a volunteer FD. I think they should receive gas money for each call they assist. My son responded to 100+ calls last year.

Yes, I understand it's volunteer, but he is a college student on a budget who wants to contribute to his community.

 

[corie161]

I work for our city and we have a volunteer fire and ambulance service. I actually do the billing for the ambulance service. We do charge for ambulance calls and transports. You would be surprised at the calls we would get if the call was 'free' because you pay taxes. I actually think in the long run it would cost the city/taxpayers more. Having a charge makes people think if it is actually really and emergency, or can it be handled a different way. There is no way that the taxes now would support the ambulance service alone. There is no way to predict the supplies you have to keep on hand for all different types of situations, along with the cost of fuel and the volunteers putting their life on the line in certain circumstances.

The fire department as far as I know, does not charge for calls in town, but will charge for out of town calls. I think the reasoning for this is the taxes, but if your in an accident out in a rural area, whose to say you 'pay' taxes for that local fire area? You may live in a completely different area, or maybe you rent and you don't pay property taxes persay? It's really a fine line. I think most of what the Fire Department collects goes towards updating equipment and trucks. If there fires were included in the taxes, you would have to increase the budget everytime you needed new equipment and taxpayers would balk about that too.

Like I said this is for a small town vounteer service which may be completely different than paid departments and the like.

 

[gris gris]

The difference is, the telephone poles are private property and they belong to the power company and thus is covered by your liability insurance.

But guard rails, street surfaces, etc..are public property, right? I work at an insurance co and we get bills all the time for damaged guard rails from cities/town.

If the Fire Dept are paid responders, then they should also be well trained responders so if there was a problem with malpractice and it was due to significant negligence, than why should they be protected from suit. That is why towns and cities carry insurance.

In Old Saybrook it's all volunteer, and these folks are trained very well. They saved this woman's life!! If they weren't trained well she would have died. And if her SIL knew how to drive his car, she wouldn't have found herself under water. I guess my point with this one is that event though the town's insurance is going to cover it, it shouldn't have even become an issue. Now we have to deal with the legal fees, time wasted, etc.....of course I guess this would have happened if she died too.

But in Hartford they are a paid department - but they aren't being paid to clean up a HazMat spill. Someone has to pay the bill to ESI or Clean Harbors or whoever does the clean up.

MarkeyMouse, it's too bad your town doesn't have some sort of incentive program. In our town we get a $1000 property tax credit based on how many training classes DH attends and how many calls he responds to. I'm glad your son is a volunteer! DH would do it either way as I'm sure your son (and most volunteers) would. It's just a nice bonus.

 

[Free4Life11]

No I don't think so.

At the theatre I work at a kid pulled the fire alarm. I believe the theatre is charged $500 for the false alarm, although the kid didn't run and the cops caught him so his parents have to pay.

Also, you can't control who comes. Once our dryer started on fire in the apartment basement. Well luckily we had a fire extinguisher and put it out but my mom was worried about the gas lines and called...well withing five minutes, I kid you not, we had FOUR hook and ladders and some sort of chief! Wed definitely didn't expect it. This was in Chicago too so it was no easy feat for them. I'd hate for people NOT to err on the side of caution out of fear they'd have to pay.

 

[dcentity2000]

In any compassionate society, all emergency services should be funded by the public for the public. I can see sense in imposing fines on malicious misuse of the services, but not on accidents (eg. infants calling 999/911/112, depending on your location in the world )

Personally I've always been curious as to why America doesn't have a socialised health care system. It makes no sense to me how anyone could charge on an individual basis for well-being. Surely everyone should have the same rights to be treated and cared for?

Granted, there are downsides to a socialised system. It's easier for illegal aliens to abuse and raises questions as to what constitutes "health care" (do you consider, for instance, sex changes as eligible for state funded health care?) But at the end of the day you can rest assured that should you have a heart attack, emergency services will come to your rescue at any hour, take you to hospital for treatment all the way through to recovery without delivering a bill that would induce ANOTHER heart attack.

It's like insurance. You pay towards the service that saves others, comfortable in the knowledge that should you ever need them, they'll be there for you without questions over funding.



Rich::

 

[ChrisnSteph]

The department my dh works for doesn't charge for medical aids and accidental fires. But if your kid sets a fire that takes out a couple acres, those parents are getting a bill.

 

[jbdreamer]

We vacation to Door County in Wisconsin evey summer. I remember one year a local Fire Department was adverising for their annual Charity Pancake Breakfast. The slogan was: "If you don't come to our breakfast, we won't come to your fire."

 

[Free4Life11]

Personally I've always been curious as to why America doesn't have a socialised health care system. It makes no sense to me how anyone could charge on an individual basis for well-being. Surely everyone should have the same rights to be treated and cared for?

Not to go off topic, but the way our government runs things now, we can only IMAGINE how they'd run a health care system. Also in America so many of our health problems are related to lifestyle choices. If people would exercise more, not smoke, not drink excessively, not spend so much time tanning, not each such a crappy diet, etc. they would greatly reduce their risk of many health problems! If we would just start focusing on prevention our costs would be so much lower. Sadly many people would rather take a pill than change their lifestyle.