TrekkerMcTrekkerface t1_j9ogrix wrote
EMTs need to make more
Ambulances should cost less
cakeversuspie t1_j9owq6q wrote
They should be fucking free. It is in almost every other CIVILIZED country
_Maxolotl t1_j9qwe4h wrote
we're not a civilized country.
ActualBlueCheckMark t1_j9r0vih wrote
People in the US abuse ambulance services.
Edit: Downvotes because you privileged fucks don’t know any EMTs.
cakeversuspie t1_j9r4ugn wrote
Ahh, so because some people abuse it, that means we should let others suffer by slapping them with $1k debt.
Do you think people in other countries don't also abuse it? I don't see those countries trying to charge over $1k for an ambulance.
Why do you people lack so much empathy?
ActualBlueCheckMark t1_j9r8r27 wrote
They get cut off in other countries or charged for it when they do.
This isn’t empathy, it is limited resources, when anyone can just order up an ambulance for any reason, they won’t be around for people who really need them.
Where is your empathy for those people?
C0NEYISLANDWHITEFISH t1_j9rix6y wrote
So why don’t we do that, instead of charging everybody?
1martini t1_j9s4w99 wrote
Because when you send an EMS bill to most people (ie people that aren't abusing the ambulance service) it gets sent to insurance and paid or paid out of pocket. However, when the ambulance picks up a john doe who doesn't have their insurance and never even provides a real name or contact information, there's nobody to send a bill too. You can't "just charge the people abusing it" because it's not a service that gets denied if people don't pay.
​
See u/knockatize's post. You think someone who calls thousands of ambulances actually pays for each call? How about somebody who overdoses in the street?
C0NEYISLANDWHITEFISH t1_j9t7ylt wrote
Why not have that law on the books, but charge those who abuse it either financially or criminally? I’d rather it be free and the abuse that’s rampant now continues, versus the current rampant abuse in addition to charging people who have the audacity to give their real name and insurance info, ya know?
1martini t1_j9t8k1s wrote
How do you charge someone financially or criminally though? If they won't give you any information, your options are to either release them and never see any money, or call the police and never see any money; not to mention the countless legal and ethical issues with trying to legally charge people who use medical services.
​
It's not just people who call 911 for fun, it's drug addicts who repeatedly overdose and will never pay, and people without health insurance who call an ambulance and go to the ER for routine issues. You can't just deny care because they won't pay, there's an obligation, both legally and ethically, to treat and stabalize them, yet you're never going to see a dime from them.
C0NEYISLANDWHITEFISH t1_j9tlwqe wrote
I don’t think anyone is saying deny care to people. I think it’s that if it’s determined to be medically egregious to call an ambulance for something, then they’ll be charged for it.
Either way, even if they didn’t implement that, it doesn’t change the amount of abusive 911 calls in the system, so why punish those who carry insurance or give their real info? Seems by not making it free for all, it continues to encourage those who abuse the system to use it while discouraging those who might truly need it - a worst of both worlds situation, right?
knockatize t1_j9srr4j wrote
It’s not empathy people lack. It’s money.
The taxpayer is not a bottomless source of cash to set on fire. Especially not on behalf of people who should have been in custody all along, be it inpatient or plain old jail.
iv2892 t1_j9pci6u wrote
If it wasn’t for the corruption and our money going into Ukraine we would have more money for this
LeicaM6guy t1_j9pdxpy wrote
You know we can drop dump-trucks full of money into Ukraine and have a decent health care system, right? We wouldn't even notice it, and it's not like they don't both deserve it.
BigDaddyBimbus t1_j9pesmt wrote
Ukraine has nothing to do with corporations fucking everyone over.
Neckwrecker t1_j9pjmh8 wrote
>Ukraine has nothing to do with corporations fucking everyone over.
It does have a little to do with it (defense contractors).
-wnr- t1_j9pjdo6 wrote
We can very much afford what we're putting into Ukraine. Much of that value is the original sticker price of old or used equipment the US will replace anyway. The embarrassment of the Russian military is a huge windfall for the American defense industry. Poland alone tried to order 500 HIMARS which we can't even supply. All the weapons systems we sell will in turn generate billions in service contracts, eventual upgrades, and ammunition purchases that goes right back to the American economy.
Combine all that with neutering the Russian military and strengthening NATO unity; while putting zero American troops in harm's way. This has been the bargain of the century.
TranquilSeaOtter t1_j9plr8h wrote
I bet you're the first person to screech about communism when people talk about universal healthcare.
iv2892 t1_j9qw70p wrote
Not really , I think healthcare is one of those things we can do better .
09-24-11 t1_j9pr6mb wrote
Hey guess what mr whatabout we STILL wouldn’t put money into social programs if we weren’t involved in Ukraine. That’s people our politicans value corporations over people. Wake up.
iv2892 t1_j9qvnes wrote
Im not exclusively blaming it on the Ukraine situation, but we always seem to have money for wars and stuff we don’t really need . Yes , we need a strong military but is not fair when other countries don’t cheap in nearly as much per citizen
09-24-11 t1_j9qwl0j wrote
Fair point and one you probably should have led with
[deleted] t1_j9pg134 wrote
[deleted]
cakeversuspie t1_j9pebha wrote
>If it wasn’t for the corruption and our money going into Ukraine we would have more money for this
You're not totally wrong in that statement. Other countries rely on our firepower and with that comes most of our country's budget going to things like aid and weapons for other countries that are currently in war time, but Americans VOTED for this. Also I love how you're using Ukraine as an example but didn't bring up other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran where we also spent tons of money. So let's not pretend that if we weren't sending money to Ukraine that ALL OF A SUDDEN we would have money for things like healthcare and infrastructure.
Just so we're clear, I agree that we spend too much on war mongering and not enough on things I mentioned above. But just remember which politicians were voted in and what their priorities are, and I'll tell you this, it wasn't the progressives who actually fought for things like healthcare reform. It's not progressives who want to abolish unions and keep slave wages in this country. It's not progressives that want to deregulate industries and it's not progressives that are trying to bring back child labor.
knockatize t1_j9ozl05 wrote
Wherever they are “free” (going forward, use “taxpayer funded” if you prize honesty and accuracy) such services are abused.
Sorry the ambulance crew couldn’t deal with your heart attack because they were busy tending to a drunk.
Criminalizing emergency services abuse would go a long way toward shutting down “frequent flyers” who call emergency services with minor complaints.
Ryuuken1127 t1_j9p0tsa wrote
>they were busy tending to a drunk
Ah yes, someone overindulged, so therefore they shouldn't receive free emergency treatment because they're a shit stain on society. Let's continue the course of obliterating people into debt asking for emergency (or any kind of) healthcare.
I really don't understand why Americans' first thought of any sort of free healthcare is "iTs gUnNa bE aBuSeD bY tHoSe wHo DoNt dEsErVe iT" (when in fact, they're the ones who probably need it the most)
cakeversuspie t1_j9p2s9k wrote
>>they were busy tending to a drunk > >Ah yes, someone overindulged, so therefore they shouldn't receive free emergency treatment because they're a shit stain on society. Let's continue the course of obliterating people into debt asking for emergency (or any kind of) healthcare.
This is the part that kills me. Because A SMALL MINORITY of people may abuse the system, that means we need to keep the current system of people potentially using taxis to get to the hospital to avoid being financially crushed by a $1k bill from an ambulance ride.
GnomeChomski t1_j9ptl5y wrote
Racist assholes are convinced by carlson tucker that 'some people' are leeches on the system...and are gonna take their donut.
knockatize t1_j9r5tyd wrote
It is nowhere near a small minority of the total responses - and that's the problem.
That "small minority" is responsible for a big mess.
While many 911 calls do merit an emergency police response, unnecessarily dispatching armed officers to calls where their presence is unnecessary is more than just an ineffective use of safety resources; it can also create substantially adverse outcomes for communities of color, individuals with behavioral health disorders and disabilities, and other groups who have been disproportionately affected by the American criminal justice system.
Did anybody in this thread ever think that maybe there was a progressive reason for not being a damn fool about people who abuse the system?
ELONGATEDSNAIL t1_j9p36vs wrote
I used to be an EMT . There are frequent flyers with non emergency issues very often and they deff take up resources. Most of the time it's just elderly people who are on medicare. These people are usually poor and they use it as a way to get free medication. There are also people with mental illness who have some episode. Bringing them to a hospital does not really solve the issue but we have no other way to deal with these kinds of people besides the police. But the worst kind of people are the ones who are just trying to score narcotics. I didn't see that happen to often but i imagine it does in worse areas.
knockatize t1_j9ra186 wrote
Being drunk is rarely a 911-level emergency requiring ambulance response. Not unless somebody is driving drunk or aspirating on their own vomit.
And nobody needs EMT response multiple times daily.
cakeversuspie t1_j9p3f28 wrote
>Wherever they are “free” (going forward, use “taxpayer funded” if you prize honesty and accuracy) such services are abused. > >Sorry the ambulance crew couldn’t deal with your heart attack because they were busy tending to a drunk. > >Criminalizing emergency services abuse would go a long way toward shutting down “frequent flyers” who call emergency services with minor complaints.
So your solution is...do nothing...because some people MIGHT abuse the system? So we should keep using the same system where people would rather take the risk on a cab ride than be saddled with potentially crippling debt for a medical emergency?
People abuse the welfare system too, but that still exists. And imo, if the welfare system prevents just ONE person/family from starving or being on the street, I am more than happy with my taxes going to that, even if there is abuse.
knockatize t1_j9pem7v wrote
Might, my ass.
People DO abuse the system. A lot. And taxpayers pay for it all.
This is classic tragedy of the commons: a small but significant part of the population monopolizing and misusing services that are for the -entire- population, and going unpunished even in extreme cases.
First responders can let the frequent flyer know about the existing non-emergency programs for the caller, and either they get with the program or face fines and charges. These are existing programs in many jurisdictions.
But not New York City, it would appear.
Google “312 Riverside Drive” in Manhattan. It won’t show up on a map because it doesn’t exist, but it is the reported address for thousands of fake 911 calls.
From ONE guy. In this case, an old crackhead in a shelter. (That’s “older individual experiencing crackheadedness” for the exquisitely sensitive.)
Last I knew, he’s still at the shelter and still messing with 911.
Which seems to be okay by New York. One idiot Karen makes one racist 911 call about a birdwatcher and the politicians fall over themselves to pass something on bogus 911 calls involving a protected class.
But when it comes to the other hundreds of thousands of fake calls they don’t do dick.
MyBlueBucket t1_j9pfy8n wrote
not sure why you're not more concerned about the fact that people forego medical treatment due to high medical costs. People abuse any system, but the current system punishes those who have actual medical emergencies. Ambulance rides shouldn't be a for profit business.
My mother passed out all of a sudden at home one morning and I was freaking out and called the ambulance. She didn't want to go on the ambulance because she didn't want to pay for the ride but I made her go on. Fortunately she was fine, but why should she be punished for possibly having a medical emergency? She got a bill in the mail for almost $1000.
You're more concerned about the abuse by a minority of people, but not the abuse done by corporations that want to suck the money out of people suffering from medical issues.
GnomeChomski t1_j9ps72x wrote
The person you're replying to is a 'fiscal conserv-'...I mean he's a fucking racist.
MyBlueBucket t1_j9pzedy wrote
you mean the "fuck you, I got mine" party? Yeah was pretty obvious lol
cakeversuspie t1_j9pm1ei wrote
This person gets it! Thank you!
Pool_Shark t1_j9p5szg wrote
System is abused regardless. Instead of costing citizens fine the abusers
_Maxolotl t1_j9qxmzk wrote
Tens of thousands of bureaucrats are employed by the government to do the job of determining whether or not people are "deserving" of government services, so that trash like you can be satisfied that people you disapprove of aren't getting help.
If we fired them all, we'd have a lot more money to spend on providing universal free emergency care.
knockatize t1_j9r4cip wrote
Not getting help?
First responders have to provide some kind of service to people they know full well are delusional because they've dealt with their shit thousands of times.
"One man with a cellphone has created enough havoc to be hauled over and over into court, but not enough to warrant a prison cell. He knows it’s wrong, and he apologizes to the judge, but he won’t stop*."*
...but whose cases account for countless hours in court, counseling sessions, medical appointments and other city services."
And we're on the hook for all of it. For everybody else in a city of 8 million who pulls this crap. Eventually some first responders figure out the calls are bogus but there's lots of turnover so it's a lesson that has to be repeatedly and expensively learned.
Services? There are craploads of services.
The services that work are the ones where he's put in a secure facility. With no phone.
RChickenMan t1_j9rbjao wrote
> going forward, use “taxpayer funded” if you prize honesty and accuracy
You can't truly expect the general population to integrate conservative talking points into their everyday speech. It's widely understood that "free" in the context of government services does indeed refer to taxpayer-funded. This whole "it's not free it's taxpayer-funded" thing isn't the "gotcha" that you think it is.
knockatize t1_j9rdh6r wrote
Fine, call them free if you'd like.
You still can't endlessly dump false-alarm and non-emergency calls on EMTs and expect them to sit there and take it. Not for any wage.
You also don't want cops responding to non-emergencies, do you? That's the leftist talking point, but when some eager beaver fresh out of the academy arrives on the scene because such is the insistence of the Reddit masses, don't be shocked when a mentally-ill repeat caller who should have been in an inpatient facility gets plugged.
RChickenMan t1_j9uur0i wrote
Well no, but you also can't expect people to sit there and take it when vast swaths of our society are unable to afford access to medical care?
knockatize t1_j9uykmz wrote
Tell it to the people who waste emergency response resources, and the politicians who enable them. A whole lot of access opens up then, but politicians don’t want to be in the position of saying “no” to anybody.
-wnr- t1_j9phhzv wrote
Are you arguing that they shouldn't be "tax payer funded", or that they should be "tax payer funded" but also come with more enforcement against abuse?
knockatize t1_j9ponnc wrote
It is is partly a taxpayer funded service and should remain as such, but that can’t be defined as unlimited services to everyone everywhere forever.
There has to be a “shit list” for people who misuse the service, so that it’s still available for people with legit needs.
tekdemon t1_j9pdekt wrote
It’s extra bizarre since the FDNY is a taxpayer funded service to begin with.
Scout-Penguin t1_j9pmp97 wrote
Literally 85% of the funding, over $300mm, for FDNY EMS is from non-tax sources; so, EMS in NYC is substantially based on a cost-recovery model.
C0NEYISLANDWHITEFISH t1_j9ritft wrote
I get that it isn’t, but no other emergency service charges you for it. You don’t get a bill when you need a cop, you don’t get a bill when your house is on fire, but you get a bill if you have a medical emergency.
tgblack t1_j9sep8t wrote
Careful, don’t give them any ideas!
knockatize t1_j9pqh5r wrote
They will cost less once the widespread abuse of the system is addressed.
24,000 bogus 911 calls from one person?
Thousands of calls from one person to the same nonexistent address?
On top of the usual deluge of frequent flyers, cranks, pranks, Karens, and lonely old people?
If nothing is done, that’s as good as condoning it.
If FDNY and every other first responder agency doesn’t have a chronic-caller strategy that results in the bogus calls stopping, that’s failure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments