Are the fire and police departments examples of socialistic agencies?

As long as Congress and most government entities have their own health care and pension systems they will not give a rats ars for the rest of us.

 

If our fire and police departments were run like Canada's heathcare system, we would need to schedule
house fires or burglaries four to six months out to assure proper response times. :lol:


BUT, if Canadian healtcare was run like our police or fire departments:

1) Canadians wouldn't be flocking to other countries for urgent care procedures which are unavailable in a timely manner in their country.
http://www.wockhardthospitals.net/news/canadian-patients.asp

2) Canadians wouldn't feel the need to buy heath insurance.
http://www.canada-health-insurance.com/

3) Private heathcare clinics in Canada would not exist.
http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/
http://www.mcimed.com/
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=3f0317...38-70216766efce

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 24 2007, 12:10 AM) [snapback]467120[/snapback]</div>

Speaking as a fire service insider ....

Don't count on it. Efficiency and effectiveness are not the same. Yes, when 9-1-1 is called firefighters typically respond promptly and perform effectively and heroically a very dangerous job (as the recent deaths in Charleston show so vividly). But it is my view that many (not all) fire departments are bloated with bureaucracy and considerably inefficient. Yeah, those "grunts on the ground" get things done during an emergency, but they may have to wait for years for modern equipment, proper training, or effective leadership.

We in the fire service sometimes joke that our motto is "100 years of tradition unhampered by progress." But it's probably true more often than we'd like to admit.

When you know you won't be replaced, you tend to lose the motivation for efficiency and innovation.

 

Look at the history of fire departments in the US and you will readily see why this enterprise is better operated by the government. Before they became government organizations, they were privately operated, often with several operating in the same city. Which ever fire company got to the fire first got the reward money, so there are all kinds of stories about two fire companies getting into fights in the streets over the reward money while the house burned to the ground.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 24 2007, 03:20 AM) [snapback]467178[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me, but even WE don't have healthcare like the Fire and Police departments. Only those that can PAY get healthcare. No, don't talk to me about the emergency room. That isn't healthcare. And our emergency rooms are failing in their primary task because they are being used for primary care by people that DON'T HAVE HEALTHCARE.

I also don't think a few incidents indicates the Canadian healthcare system is FAILING. Perhaps a CANADIAN would like to speak on their experiences.

BTW, why don't you use Germany instead of Canada for your example. They have socialized medicine too. I know. My aunt lives there and her medical needs are taken care of promptly and with good quality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 24 2007, 03:20 AM) [snapback]467178[/snapback]</div>

And if our fire departments were run like our healthcare system:


1) If you're poor, your house would just burn to the ground. Sucks to be you.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conte...stract/26/3/780

2) If you're middle class and your house catches on fire, you'll get the fire put out, but then you'll go bankrupt.
(Ask me about this one)

3) No matter who you are, if your house catches on fire, you'd spend an hour filling out forms while your house burns.
http://cthealth.server101.com/healthcare_b..._vs__canada.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 24 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]467276[/snapback]</div>

Yup. Then all the firemen would be laid off and it would be outsourced to India.

 

I've heard of houses burning to the ground while the fire department watched because:

It was an unincorporated area and the homeowner opted NOT to pay for fire service.

So much for privitization and running the Fire Department as a for profit service.

There are certain services that should NOT be run as a for profit service or privatized.

Police and Fire are among them. So are PUBLIC schools.

Healthcare should be on this list. Because right now people die who do not have healthcare. They work. But if they get sick.....they die. As long as that is happening the U.S. has no right to declare it has the best health care system in the world.

 

If the fire department were privatized, the corporation would lay off firefighters whenever a week goes by with no fires, and when there was a fire, there'd be nobody to fight it. The fire chief would get ten million dollars a year and the firefighters would get minimum wage and no health care. Turnover would be so high, due to low wages and poor treatment by management, that there would be few if any firefighters with sufficient experience to actually put out a fire or save anybody. A quarter of the fire-fighting budget would be spent on television advertising bragging about what a great job the corporation was doing, another quarter would be spent lobbying legislators in other jurisdictions to privatize their fire departments, and another quarter would be spend on executive bonuses, and only a quarter of the budget would actually go to putting out fires.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 24 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]467293[/snapback]</div>

I've read about fires like these and it is not because the fire department is being run for profit. Usually in this case, there is no taxing authority to fund the fire department, so it is run on a subscription service. In every case I've read, the homeowner chose not to subscribe to the fire department. The only difference between these fire departments and ones in regular cities is how they raise money. In Las Vegas, our property taxes pay for police and fire. In a location where there is no taxing authority to fund a department, how can it be funded? It sucks that their house burned down, but they chose not to support the fire department.

I wonder how many people/year really die because they didn't have access to health care.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to health care, or fire departments. Cities have chosen to fund fire departments because they believe them to be in the city's best interest. If a city or state wants to do the same with health care, go for it. I really don't think the federal government is capable of running such a plan. Remember those horror stories about soldiers at Walter Reed?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Jun 24 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]467312[/snapback]</div>

Yes it sucks for those who chose not to support the fire department and had their house burn down. It also sucks for those who CHOSE not to get basic medical insurance and then had something catastrophic happen to them. Not only does it suck for them, it also sucks for the rest of us who end up footing the bill for those who can't pay their now massive medical bill.

I wonder just how prevalent it is that someone will choose to fully insure their shiny new car with collision and very low or zero deductible, yet forgo even the most basic of medical insurance for themselves.

If you can't afford basic medical coverage, you should not be buying a shiny new car and then driving to the ER and complaining that you have no medical insurance because it is too expensive. <_<

 

I always wonder though how much we already are paying for people to get medical care.

When a poor person gets really sick, they don't just go hide in a corner and die. They go to the hospital where they get treated, then the taxpayers foot the bill after the fact. Personally, I would have rather paid for the person to see a doctor when it was still a little problem, since the bill is probably less. Maybe $50 for a doctor's visit and some $10 antibiotics in many cases...but instead, we say "too bad, you can't afford health care, your problem!" Then they end up in the hospital where the bill is in the thousands each day. Wouldn't it be easier to just cover the preventive stuff so we don't have the expensive stuff down the road?

If the taxpayer is going to end up paying for it anyway, I'd rather pay the small bills than the big ones.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 24 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]467322[/snapback]</div>

Many people cannot afford medical insurance. It ain't cheap!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 24 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]467322[/snapback]</div>

This is such a pathetic straw man: The conservative's old imaginary friend: the welfare cheat in the shiny new Cadillac. I am happy to agree that nobody who cannot afford health insurance should be buying shiny new Cadillacs. And I am sure you can find cheaters in any system. (The really big cheaters are the big corporations who get massive government handouts and tax breaks.) But pointing to the one cheat in a thousand is no excuse for refusing to provide health care for the millions of low-wage workers whose greedy employers refuse to pay them a living wage.

Insurance companies suck out so many of our health care dollars, that the best solution would be to eliminate them altogether.

BTW, I have spent a fair amount of time in Canada, and all the Canadians I know are extremely happy with their health care system. I'm sure the super-rich prefer to come to the U.S. where elective or cosmetic surgery for the rich takes precedence over life-saving surgery for the poor. But ordinary Canadians know that it's better to ration health care on the basis of need, than to ration it, as we do, on the basis of ability to pay.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Jun 24 2007, 06:46 PM) [snapback]467373[/snapback]</div>

I think this is a valid consideration, although I really have no idea how much money we are talking about, and how much avoidance of early medical care is money related.

Here's the flip side, though: Americans in general do not take very good care of themselves if it is inconvenient, goes against their desires and they think a solution that somebody else pays for is available down the road. The basket of so called lifestyle diseases is proof positive. I can say from personal experience as an internist, that it is UNCOMMON for me to admit someone to the hospital for a problem that is not lifestyle related. Diabetes, obesity, Tobacco, drugs, alcohol, sedentary lifestyle -- welcome to the American medical bill.

Unless cheap access to medical care is coupled with disincentives for the above, the medical bill for all of us will go up IMO, not down. By a lot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 24 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]467405[/snapback]</div>

This is such a pathetic straw man: The liberals calling fact a straw man.

I have a sister-in-law who is a telephone triage nurse and doctors for friends and neighbors. Every one has mentioned how pervasive it is that they see patients come into the ER with no medical insurance, but drive new cars, wear fancy clothes, jewelery, watches, and chat away on cell phones.
And as EricGo has just attested to . . . it is rare for him to admit someone to the hospital for a problem that is not lifestyle related.

If we cover everyone for everything all the time, we will be left with mediocrity and extremely high medical cost which will be paid for by much higher taxes.

Should sex change operations be covered in this Pollyanna world of "it grows on trees" free heathcare for everyone?
Hey, if it is good enough for the public employees of San Francisco, shouldn't it be mandatory nationwide? How could we possibly, as a nation, deny ALL transgenders nationwide their “Transgender Equality†status as human beings. Maybe we should just adopt San Francisco's system. If they can spent that kind of money on elective stuff, they must have all the money ever needed for everything else. <_<
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article...mp;storyID=4630

And what about ugly people? FREE PLASTIC SURGERY FOR ALL!!!!! Oh, what a beautiful world we could live in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Jun 24 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]467373[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. Prevention is much cheaper. Emergency rooms are very expensive. If the public is footing the bill, why not pay for a preventative office visit than an expensive emergency room visit. Not to mention it's clogging up the emergency rooms to the point they are beyond dysfunctional.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 24 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]467276[/snapback]</div>

Some indeed might conclude that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Jun 24 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]467312[/snapback]</div>

You are correct that subscription service is a means of funding rather than one of governance. Departments that sell subscriptions often are volunteer departments with limited funding of any sort.

BTW, there are thousands of "private" fire departments across the country. They're called volunteer fire departments.