Posted 9 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
Well now that all the competition has been eliminated, there seems to be no reason to keep ambulance operating costs down. They seem to just want to charge us whatever they want because they think they’re running a for-profit business.
They are a taxpayer-funded entity. We, the taxpayers, are the ones who are funding these entities. We buy their equipment, pay their salaries and wages, furnish the maintenance and repairs, buy the fuel and oils. The list is endless.
I can’t seem to figure out why on top of all this they want to charge us to have to use the service that we already pay for! This just isn’t right.
When a patient is transported in from out of the area do they meet them at the county line and transfer patients to our ambulances? Is there an out-of-state charge for going to Utah and rescuing someone?
This is such a bogus deal to begin with. Did we get to vote on this?
KELLY CLAUSSEN
Grand Junction
15 Responses to “Why should taxpayers pay more for ambulance service?”
Posted April 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Once again you can thank the tax and spend bunch of nuts known as City Council. If everyone in the metro area all got to vote on these people that seem to continue to foul things up for everyone then we could eliminate this stuff. Until that happens we will just have more of the same.
Posted April 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s a union thing.
Union shops can’t afford for the members to see how the competition treat their employees.
That’s why Colorado is NOT a RIGHT TO WORK STATE.
Posted April 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The ambulance service taken over by the city resulted in rates no higher than the previous private firm, more firemen for the city and the city is still undermaned in the department compared with other cities of about the same size and area to cover, more direct communication between first reponders, the ambulance service and the emergency room and certainty that the service will always exist. It has ‘Enterprise” status meaning that it is designed to be self-supporting. It is not yet only because collecting for services is a long, drawn out affair and there is a high incidence of non-payment. That was the situation with the private aervice as well and their rates were designed to account for that fact and still make money. They would have dropped us like a hot potato if and when they could no longer make money. The big issue now is operational costs, primarily fuel rates, that is a universal cause of the cost of everything going up. There is also the labor costs for the the few non-firemen associated with the non-emergency part of the service. Ask any businessman how hard it is to get competent help with the very high rates of pay available in the enrgy industry. It would be nice if all of those yammering for “something for nothing” would spend a minimal amount of time actually getting facts before spouting off. We are far, far better off now with a very professional and dedicated full-service emergency response organization. There are lots of things to legitimately bitch about but this isn’t one of them.
Posted April 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, i am sure the taxpayers aren’t going to let the ambulances, firetrucks, police cars, etc. run out of fuel. What I’m saying is if we have some kinda fluke disaster,where all the ambulances would have to respond, have to respond several times,hundreds of victims injured, like big plane crash, flood, fire, earthquake, whatever, their going to bill the people for a ride to the hospital? You can’t be serious! We pay for this service with our tax dollars once, why try to make people pay twice! When we get stopped by police are they going to start billing us for thier time? They could be self-sufficient too! We don’t need Government competing in the Free-Enterprise system. OH yea, lets just invest our fire department tax dollars in some illegal stock scheme deals so we get a better return on our money! We could have bought fuel instead!
Posted April 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There are very few things that the government does better than private enterprise does.
In fact, the way things are run in this country, I can’t think of any thing a government does that private companies can’t do a lot better at a lower cost to the taxpayer/consumer.
Trash collection in the county is better and at a lower cost than the city service.
The sewer system would be a much better deal for the taxpayer/consumer if it were to be privatized.
Volunteer fire departments seem to run a bit smoother, until the city began feeling the urge to control everything associate with those services.
I’m sure the military could be run a lot more efficiently that what the current system has accomplished.
The service personnel would be getting a much higher pay scale, we would have better weapons, and we would be doing some serious progress under private CEOs looking at the bottom line instead of the political correctness of any given situation.
When we had ANR and a few other smaller providers in the valley, patients could be transported without the need for EMTs being taken from their duties. Now, ANY transport is required to be by perfashunulls frum the fire department.
With all due respect to the fire department personnel, they are not the only people qualified to play ambulance.
Nor are they always the best option.
But without competition returning to the valley by private companies, we’ll never have to worry our pretty little heads about such mundane things, will we?
Why is the “fire department” in the ambulance business anyway?
Hospitals used to be the premier providers of emergency vehicle service.
Aren’t hospitals knowledgeable enough to play ambulance? Why not? Some bureaucrat say so, and they get to be God or something?
Oh, yeah, to misquote Biden, “you can’t professionalize until you unionize.”
The private companies only hired rank amateurs that couldn’t tell which end of the ambulance to put the patient.
Posted April 6th, 2008 at 6:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mass disaster? All the ambulance services in the valley would respond–all run by volunteer fire departments.If they were private is there any question that they’d bill somebody? Of course, they’d bill the governments at every level, and we’d all pay, including their profit. We pay twice? The objective is that it pays for itself. If this is an ideological exercise why not privatize everything and let the public subscribe to the things they want. If you can afford it, you can have it. Courts? You can have as much as you can afford. Don’t rely on hired judges for justice. National defense? Connecticut, with it’s high incomes would be pretty safe. West Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi would all be in trouble.Investing fire dept.income in securities? Against the law but isn’t that the essence of free enterprise?
Unions? Grand Junction firefighters have a chapter of a national union . It is not recognized, cannot strike and has no bargaining power. Non-emergency transport is not by fire fightwers. And so it goes. My earlier observation goes. Until you guys actually know what you are talking about and get beyond your rote ideology and look at the situation on the basis of facts on the ground your comments are worthless. Do you want to deal with facts or just spout off for the purpose of showing off? Showing your ignorance and biases for all to see. Get a life! Participate in the real, rather than the virtual, world and try to make it work rather than just taking ignorant pot shots at those who do.
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 6:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whoa! Everyone back off the big I know what is best for this valley JB is on the scene.
Taking away private jobs to expand government is NEVER a good idea. My guess is that a few years from now the city will begin to explore the privatization of ambulance services just as countless other cities this size and larger are currently doing because in their words “compitition drives prices down and service up”.
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 6:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes indeed! The privatization of so many things in Iraq and the federal government and even in Colorado are really going well.Incompetence and fraud are really swell. How many millions were spent for Gov.Owens computer systems that never worked? Saying NEVER is ridiculous.Private enterprise makes our country what it is but there are some things that can be done by dedicated civil servants like the police and fire departments and the ambulance service can best provide seamless emergency servicein our local situation. I’d like to see proof of the countless other communities privatizing statement. I won’t, because the statistics prove the opposite. But of course, that was a statement arising out of ignorance. You “experts” ought to get in touch with the Fire Chief and get the facts. He’s an honest man and will give you both sides of the situation. Yeah, that’ll happen when pigs fly!
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
We can go back and forth all day long and show each other quotes, journals, reports or what have you, however I am not willing to play that game.
I included two such scenarios just to show I am not just spouting off as you are convinced. Unfortunately JB you are not the all knowing wonder you may think you are!
CONCLUSION
Private ambulance firms that survived the 1990s may find conditions better in which to thrive in the 2000s. Data show that private firms perform better, have faster access to technology, and are more cost-effective than public agencies. As shown above, new strategies are emerging that ensure a role for private firms in cooperation with public agencies. While “ambulance wars” may continue in some parts of the nation, trends indicate a brighter future for privatization of EMS. http://www.reason.org/pu18.pdf
4. Why do cities privatize EMS?
The best reason to privatize EMS is to save lives. Private providers generally combine more
advanced technology, and better system design.
But so many cities privatize EMS precisely because the stakes are so high. EMS is too vital to shield
from competition. Those skeptical of privatization should consider the limitations cities already
endure under the alternative. The real leap of faith is to commit to one provider, forever, regardless
of performance. Public EMS monopolies lack much in the way of “carrot or stick” incentives, and as
such they have little hope of being rewarded for strong performance and little fear that poor
performance will lead to their replacement. A private provider cannot compel a city to use its
services, so it must pay special attention to customer satisfaction. Private providers know that a
good reputation is the best way to expand into new markets.
Privatization allows cities to benefit from a level of technology, specialization, and expertise only
available in the private sector. Competition provides us with ever-improving drugs and medical
devices. It makes sense that it would also provide us with better EMS.
The bottom line is that privatizing EMS is not a matter of trust—it’s a matter of contract. A city
doesn’t hand a contract to a private provider and walk away with fingers crossed, hoping that the
firm will make good on its performance promises. Under privatization, elected officials still
maintain crucial oversight roles. Officials shop for the best EMS provider, and set performance
standards.http://www.reason.org/ps310.pdf
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow. That proves everything. Passages from a libertarian website. Why not go find out, first hand, what the situation in town was and why the city and county put together the ambulance coverage system that they did. Prove them wrong rather than use a biased source from your armchair free of actual dialog face to face. Fear of humiliation by the facts? Or just need somebody else to do the thinking for you?
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B is just in his “big government is perfect” mode.
During these periods he is incapable of acknowledging any corruption, however slight, in any government agency.
He will deny tooth and nail his fallacy that a small business with a couple of non-emergency transport vehicles was fined and put out of business for transporting a patient from the VA to St Marys for tests right after the the fire department seized control in the valley.
In his eyes, there is no corruption at any level of government (except for them rascally republican criminals).
Absolutely no judge has ever thrown the law out the window and ruled solely on political leanings.
But, he are smarter than anybody else so I will defer to his inferior knowledge and drop this thread.
Posted April 7th, 2008 at 9:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some people just can’t see the forest for the trees. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that this was just my opinion. No facts, no fallacies, Just my opinion!
Posted April 8th, 2008 at 12:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Borgen:
As a public safety professional who has been around EMS agencies his entire career, I congratulate you on your insight and eloquent defense of the City’s rationale in allowing the Fire Department to provide EMS services.
My firm conviction based on my professional experience is that a profit motive is incompatible with the essential mission of a public safety organization. EMS is by its’ nature a symbiotic entity, owing its’ existence to both the health care and public safety systems.
In order to remain relevant, competent, and viable, these agencies must dedicate themselves to the same discipline that is the hallmark of these two foundational elements of a civilized society. When the focus is on the shareholders, corners get cut, and service delivery suffers as a result.
The lockstep drivel spouted by the ideologues of this group was to be expected, as was the name-calling that their ‘arguments’ degenerated to when presented with the facts in an objective, credible manner. To that, all I can say is what I’ve been itching to say ever since the Community page came into existence;
What you talkin’ about, Willis?
Thanks.
Posted April 8th, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice smackdown!
Posted June 29th, 2008 at 11:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
used fire trucks…
You must put a lot of work into blogging this much!…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.