+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default Redundant Operations - Silly

    From our friends at Firehouse.com Nev. Cities Re-Examine EMS Response
    When somebody reported a man possibly having a stroke at the Palazzo recently, the Clark County Fire Department sent help. So did a local ambulance company.

    A rescue unit from Clark County Fire Station 18 quickly arrived, joined moments later by the ambulance. Fire Department medics hurried in, examined the patient and brought him on a gurney into the hotel driveway. They helped the ambulance crew load the sick man, and within 10 minutes of the first unit's arrival, he was on his way to a hospital, an ambulance company paramedic riding beside him and monitoring his vital signs.

    Over eight hours that Saturday, paramedics and emergency medical technicians from the station rolled six more times for medical calls, including a person asleep in the UNLV library who was incorrectly reported to 911 as "unconscious," and two others in which the principal problem appeared to be excessive consumption of alcohol or recreational drugs.

    In each case, the Fire Department sent at least one paramedic and one emergency medical technician. In each case, the ambulance company sent at least one paramedic and one emergency medical technician.

    Sending four highly trained specialists and two vehicles to virtually every 911 call for emergency medical service provides plenty of help to the victim, agree people on both the publicly and privately funded sides of the effort. Nationally, "dual response" is a popular model, and the variation in Las Vegas is said to be especially good.

    But it's so expensive that some members of a task force charged with finding ways to rein in county spending suggested outsourcing the Fire Department's part to private ambulance companies, so taxpayers could quit paying the bill and the patients' insurance companies could cough up. In the other direction, North Las Vegas Fire Chief Al Gillespie has proposed that his men take over transport for the most urgent medical emergencies and bill for the service. The Las Vegas Fire Department has studied a similar option.

    Estimating the potential cost savings of a different method is difficult.

    But about that expense: For weeks after the Las Vegas Review-Journal requested information about the cost of emergency medical services, or EMS, Clark County officials stalled, and they still have not answered in detail.

    Scott Allison, the county Fire Department spokesman, said, "The department does not separate costs" in a manner that would allow the cost of medical calls to be extracted. "All of our fire suppression personnel respond to any and all emergency calls," which he said could include fires, swift-water rescues, vehicle extrication, hazardous materials incidents and medical calls.

    Fire suppression personnel are 651 of the department's 814 total. County spokesman Dan Kulin said the total wages and benefits package for fire suppression employees was $115 million last year.

    Allison said 72 percent of the 122,111 calls the department answered this past year were medical.

    From that a taxpayer could calculate the cost of firefighters responding to medical calls at $82.8 million - 72 percent of wages and benefits for those personnel - in unincorporated Clark County alone. In 2007, the last year for which the county has provided complete payroll data to the Review-Journal, the average employee of the Fire Department was paid some $113,000. (The head of the local ambulance company said his paramedics, who must be trained to the same county-established standards as Fire Department paramedics, are paid about $60,000 a year.)

    The county personnel cost would not include the cost of purchasing, operating or maintaining the department's 25 medical/rescue vehicles or the additional wear and tear on 27 fire engines that also carry paramedics and respond frequently to medical calls.

    County spokesman Erik Pappa said the county bought three medical/rescue units last year for $627,000, but the cost of one averages $275,000. Although the county did not say how long such vehicles can be expected to last, replacement cost of the medical/rescue fleet would be $6.9 million. New fire engines cost $593,000 each.

    Of the 691 people who work for Las Vegas Fire & Rescue, 559 are in fire suppression and received $98.3 million in wages and benefits last year. Most are rotated during each shift between assignment to firetrucks and to rescue units. Last year the department reported that medical emergencies are roughly 90 percent of total call volume, so the medical/rescue share of the suppression employee cost was $88.4 million. The typical Las Vegas firefighter last year grossed about $110,000.

    Besides pay, out of a total 2010 budget of $117.1 million, the Las Vegas department allocated $10 million for EMS expenses including supplies, drugs and training costs.

    In North Las Vegas, Gillespie said his department also has a high ratio between medical calls and all others; of about 30,000 calls last year, he estimated, 75 percent to 80 percent were medical. The 221 employees of the department drew $32.3 million in wages and benefits, with $25.8 million of it going to the 178 employees in the fire operations division, which also answers medical calls; 75 percent of that figure is $19.3 million...
    Yes, follow the link, there is more. But what we have are redundant services. One is paid for by the taxpayer, the other is paid by the consumer of the service. So if you are a Vegas resident you pay twice. It isn't rocket science to figure out you need to pick one or the other.

    Of course if the Fire Department were to lose 75% of its work then it would have to cut staff by 75%. And if the Ambulance service was eliminated then you would lose an equal number of jobs. So the jobs are a wash. The savings to the taxpayer would be higher on the city side as the average FF makes $113,000 while the private Paramedics make $60,000. As a consumer, the choice is obvious.

  2. #2
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    From our friends at Firehouse.com Nev. Cities Re-Examine EMS Response


    Yes, follow the link, there is more. But what we have are redundant services. One is paid for by the taxpayer, the other is paid by the consumer of the service. So if you are a Vegas resident you pay twice. It isn't rocket science to figure out you need to pick one or the other.

    Of course if the Fire Department were to lose 75% of its work then it would have to cut staff by 75%. And if the Ambulance service was eliminated then you would lose an equal number of jobs. So the jobs are a wash. The savings to the taxpayer would be higher on the city side as the average FF makes $113,000 while the private Paramedics make $60,000. As a consumer, the choice is obvious.
    We really don't expect you to understand. It's a firefighter thing.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    We really don't expect you to understand. It's a firefighter thing.
    You don't think he would understand that if you cut the fire department response the average 911 to @patient time would increase?

    You don't think he would understand that to keep a similar level of response the ambulance company would have to hire a large number of staff and buy many more ambulances, driving up the cost of the EMS aspect.

    Of course we are talking about the guy who doesn't think taking 3 extra minutes for the first due at a structure fire is a bad thing, so I am sure he is fine with an extra 3 minutes for the first medic to show up at a full arrest.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    CrnkB8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Don't base your opinion or view on 1 article. These articles began appearing in the LV Review Journal on 2-21-10. There is a lot more behind the story which the Review Journal is not reporting.

    To you it may be "redundant services". To the fire department, it's about providing emergency services to people in need, not making a buck. This dual service has been going on for decades, it is now only an issue because of the economy. Decades ago, the fire department attempted to take over EMS totally. The main reason was because private ambulance companies could not guarantee response times or even available units in a time of emergency. The private ambulance company also cried "foul' that the government was limiting "free enterprise".

    In this article http://www.lvrj.com/news/_dual_-does...-84894942.html - Wilson rose to run the ambulance company from working his way through college as an EMT and was one of the founders of MedicWest. He is 42, and came to Las Vegas 17 years ago.

    "I'm a believer in this system," he said. "There should be paramedics in the fire department, and there should be paramedics in the private sector. ... If you're an injured person, what you really want out of an EMS system is for somebody to get there fast, and you don't much care which one it is. The fire department mission is quick response and then getting back into service to cover the next emergency. Ours includes transport, and our time in service for each call tends to be rather greater."

    He continued, "An important thing for everybody to understand is that Las Vegas is an island, and when the next big bad thing happens -- I don't know what the bad thing will be -- we'll come together very well. And we'd better, because the next closest EMS system that could give us much help is San Bernardino. So we have to be able to take care of ourselves, and that's the best argument for a dual system."


    As you can read, even the people directly involved think it's a good idea.

    As far as salaries, there is no comparison. A private ambulance company pays the bare minimum to its employees because they are in the business to make money. They have a high turnover rate, therefore most of their employees are at rock bottom pay. The "average employees salary" for the fire department also includes a benefit package (medical, dental, retirement, etc). Even if the pay is $113,000 a year, at least your getting some return on your investment. Would you rather have a firefighter/paramedic sit around the station or actually go out and do their job?

    You only pay twice if you use the service. Of course you will always pay taxes for fire/police. The taxes you pay do not go towards private ambulance. The only time you would pay for the private ambulance is if you actually used it. Do you really believe if the government "outsourced" it's EMS calls to a private company, the government would lower your taxes? I doubt it.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    pasobuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Loverly upstate NY
    Posts
    1,734

    Default

    And if you look at the salaries - the FF is making LOTS of overtime (one article I found stated upwards of base salary!).....the Medic pay quoted is probably little/no overtime.....

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    477

    Default

    The redundant part is that the FD is responding with an ambulance, when it's the private that actually does the transport. And of course the FD has a gigantic behemoth of an ambulance, while the private comes in with an E450 that does the job just fine.

    I'm not saying the FD should or should not respond. But if you're going to send two guys who have no intention of transporting anyway, maybe there's a better way to do it than a Frieghtliner ambulance?

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emt161 View Post
    I'm not saying the FD should or should not respond. But if you're going to send two guys who have no intention of transporting anyway, maybe there's a better way to do it than a Frieghtliner ambulance?
    Maybe they are using Freightliner because the rest of the government's truck fleet uses Freightliner. We use the same engine and chassis as the light duty street and roads, parks and rec, water and sewer, and sanitation departments. You get a better deal when you buy them 20 or so at a time. Also keeps your part inventory down when they all take the same parts and you are only dealing with one vendor or parts guy.

    Once you get past the chassis all the boxes are pretty much the same.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    CrnkB8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    217

    Default

    The redundant part is that the FD is responding with an ambulance, when it's the private that actually does the transport. And of course the FD has a gigantic behemoth of an ambulance, while the private comes in with an E450 that does the job just fine.

    I'm not saying the FD should or should not respond. But if you're going to send two guys who have no intention of transporting anyway, maybe there's a better way to do it than a Frieghtliner ambulance?
    The FD does transport. It's vital that they do transport and have the capability, especially if the private ambulance is delayed, has an extended arrival time or does not have any units available. It's not good when you tell a patient "we need to wait 10-20-30 minutes for an ambulance to take you to the hospital because the private's not here yet".

    Also, what if the private arrived with 2 EMT's? Once the medic initiates ALS care they cannot pass care to someone that's LESS trained and certified. In this case, the fire medics might as well transport themselves.

    The medics on the "gigantic behemoth of an ambulance" are also firefighters that respond to structural fires. This enhances the capability to provide immediate ALS triage, treatment and transport on the fireground for injuries/illnesses to either civilian or fire personnel. The rig also carries PPE, SCBA's and various rescue equipment that is not found on a private ambulance.

  9. #9
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    You don't think he would understand that if you cut the fire department response the average 911 to @patient time would increase?

    You don't think he would understand that to keep a similar level of response the ambulance company would have to hire a large number of staff and buy many more ambulances, driving up the cost of the EMS aspect.

    Of course we are talking about the guy who doesn't think taking 3 extra minutes for the first due at a structure fire is a bad thing, so I am sure he is fine with an extra 3 minutes for the first medic to show up at a full arrest.
    You missed the point. You have two agencies responding with the similarly qualified personnel, to the same incident. It like getting 2 tow trucks to tow your car. Pick one or the other and go with it. The people are paying twice for the same service.

    My conservative side says cut the Government jobs and let the private contractor do the job. My liberal side says the private companies can't be trusted and we must trust the government to provide the services. My middle of the road says that the government must allow an ambulance service to work within its area of coverage and that the government entity must set requirements on the private company. Don't meet the requirements and bye bye.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Scarecrow..

    I see your point, sorta.

    It seems like the major issue is that they arrived with 2 ambulances, and I understand where you are coming from. If the private service is contracted to do the transports, then why does the fire department run ambulances?

    That is actually a legtimate question as it does represent a duplication of resources.

    If the FD has ambulances why doesn't it do the transport? Why does it require an ambulance if irt's performing first response, which is exactly how it appears? Perfectly legtimate questions.

    Now if the the FD had shown up in an engine or a 2-door squad, there would not have been the duplication of services. They FD would have clearly been running EMS first response with supression-tasked resources, which happen in thousands of places everyday.

    So who actually does do the transports?

    On that same note, Shreveport fire is experimenting with a sprint car system in it's high volume EMS areas. They have purchased 3 Explorers and are staffing them with a driver and paramedic each at 3central points in the high-volume EMS areas of the city. They will now respond as EMS first response units instead of the engines, unless they are out-of-quarters and an engine is significantly closer. In the lower-volume EMS areas, the closest engine will still respond. This should be an interesting experiment and should lower many of the high-volume engine response numbers.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-26-2010 at 03:15 PM.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    From our friends at Firehouse.com Nev. Cities Re-Examine EMS Response


    Yes, follow the link, there is more. But what we have are redundant services. One is paid for by the taxpayer, the other is paid by the consumer of the service. So if you are a Vegas resident you pay twice. It isn't rocket science to figure out you need to pick one or the other.

    Of course if the Fire Department were to lose 75% of its work then it would have to cut staff by 75%.
    Of course it's not surprising that you would latch onto that flawed line of thinking. I don't debate that if the FD stopped providing EMS responses and lost 75% of their call volume that some cuts would probably be unavoidable, however you clearly don't understand FD staffing and deployment objectives if you believe that 75% of that FD's staffing is based on doing EMS calls.

    Using that logic, if/when my department starts formally doing first responder EMS calls, then we'll need to increase our staffing by more than 100% since our call volume will increase by more than 100%.

    And if the Ambulance service was eliminated then you would lose an equal number of jobs. So the jobs are a wash.
    I'm not so sure that would truly be the case.

    The savings to the taxpayer would be higher on the city side as the average FF makes $113,000 while the private Paramedics make $60,000. As a consumer, the choice is obvious.
    Of course the savings would be higher for the taxpayer with cuts on the FD side, the private Paramedics are being paid by a private company rather than by the government.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emt161 View Post
    The redundant part is that the FD is responding with an ambulance, when it's the private that actually does the transport. And of course the FD has a gigantic behemoth of an ambulance, while the private comes in with an E450 that does the job just fine.

    I'm not saying the FD should or should not respond. But if you're going to send two guys who have no intention of transporting anyway, maybe there's a better way to do it than a Frieghtliner ambulance?
    If all their job entailed was running from patient to patient all day, then there probably would be a more suitable vehicle that what is used. However, as was pointed out, the job isn't just treating and not transporting patients.

    They appear to have suppression, rescue and other job responsibilities that necessitate having a larger vehicle to accomodate the equipment they will carry with them. They also DO transport patients at times so having the ability to do so is important and requires some space.

    Additionally, these larger vehicles hold up overtime a lot better than the smaller ambulances. There have been several EMS systems that have determined that running the bigger units and keeping them longer (since they hold up so better) than the smaller units is more cost effective in the long run.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Fire department apparatus coverage is not souly based on run volume. I can be a factor on where to increase coverage, but it is not the only factor.

    The biggest factor is geography. All departments play the ISO (or equivalent) game. So many stations with X and Y apparatus within a certain area. Does not matter the run volume. We have staffed career stations that make 30 runs a month, should we get rid of them and tell the residents (large horse farm owners) that we are shutting down the stations and they can wait for the next closest units? And in doing so increase the ISO rating for everyone because ISO ratings is for the department and not an area?

    Also, I am not paid to fight fires. I am paid to be available from 0700 to 0700 every third day to supervise a company for any incident that we are dispatched to, EMS, fire, rescue, assistance, or service does not matter.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Scarecrow..

    I see your point, sorta.

    It seems like the major issue is that they arrived with 2 ambulances, and I understand where you are coming from. If the private service is contracted to do the transports, then why does the fire department run ambulances?

    That is actually a legtimate question as it does represent a duplication of resources.

    If the FD has ambulances why doesn't it do the transport? Why does it require an ambulance if irt's performing first response, which is exactly how it appears? Perfectly legtimate questions.
    Yes, they are certainly legitimate questions. The answer to the question as to why the FD utilizes an ambulance for first response appears to be that they do transport some patients and do transport some others if the private ambulance is too delayed. Sounds reasonable to me.

    Now if the the FD had shown up in an engine or a 2-door squad, there would not have been the duplication of services. They FD would have clearly been running EMS first response with supression-tasked resources, which happen in thousands of places everyday.
    Exactly. The only difference here is that they are using a vehicle that is capable of transporting patients.

    So who actually does do the transports?
    As I understand the system out there, the private EMS does the vast majority of the 911 transports. However, in Las Vegas (for one), the FD ambulance normally transports patients from MVAs, but acts as a first responder for other calls and only transports them if the private unit is significantly delayed or if the delay would not be in the patient's best interests.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    safdkiltie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    78

    Default

    If not the Fire Department, who will tend to transients ( see how polite I can be? ) and those who otherwise lack the funds for tx/trnsprt?
    It looks like this system frees up fire for treating and transporting shootings, stabbings, and other code 3 trauma, code 3 medicine, etc... while private ambulances can take code 2 trauma and medicine ( or code 3, in the highly unlikely event they arrive before FD ). There's no argument for cutting FD service. The End. They're available to provide EMERGENCY services.
    I'll take the Fire Service high-road on this one and still say: get more FD staffing and cut the private umbilicus... Buuuuut, I can see how it's a workable system, and if all parties are happy, well, good job and keep it up.

  16. #16
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Post Stupidity Reigns..............

    I read the First Post and skipped the rest..........

    There is no Reasonable Way to Handle Emergency Medical Services in the Field except to have all Ambulances Owned and operated by the Fire Department, preferably with an Ambulance located in every Fire Station. Period. End of Story.

    What about Private EMS? They should be relegated to Non-Emergency work such as Inter-Facility Transfers.

    It's rare that I'll stand up and say that I have the Best Answer or the One way is better than others, but this is that exception. I firmly believe there is no better way to provide EMS to a community than thru the Fire Department.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    PaladinKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    I read the First Post and skipped the rest..........

    There is no Reasonable Way to Handle Emergency Medical Services in the Field except to have all Ambulances Owned and operated by the Fire Department, preferably with an Ambulance located in every Fire Station. Period. End of Story.

    What about Private EMS? They should be relegated to Non-Emergency work such as Inter-Facility Transfers.

    It's rare that I'll stand up and say that I have the Best Answer or the One way is better than others, but this is that exception. I firmly believe there is no better way to provide EMS to a community than thru the Fire Department.
    Ditto...

    The Fire Department reigns supreme!
    HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    TruckSixFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A Great place USA, which means not West Coast...!
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    I read the First Post and skipped the rest..........

    There is no Reasonable Way to Handle Emergency Medical Services in the Field except to have all Ambulances Owned and operated by the Fire Department, preferably with an Ambulance located in every Fire Station. Period. End of Story.

    What about Private EMS? They should be relegated to Non-Emergency work such as Inter-Facility Transfers.

    It's rare that I'll stand up and say that I have the Best Answer or the One way is better than others, but this is that exception. I firmly believe there is no better way to provide EMS to a community than thru the Fire Department.
    You took the exact words out of my mouth Chief! (BTW NICE NEW BOX!!!!....saw it on your website)

    I feel the best way to provide ems care is to provide the citizens with an ALS engine/truck, or squad and an ALS transport ambo provided by the FD. The ALS engine helps in many ways.

    1. If the ambo is out at the hospital, or at another still district/dept on a call the engine can respond and start ALS care. 2. It is a lot better to have 5 medic/EMT's on an ems run then just 2 on the ambo. 3. If you have multiple Patients the ambo crew can attend to 1 Pt. while the engine attends to another. 4. If you have a heavy Pt. you have 5 guys instead of 2. 5. If you need any extra equipment a guy from the engine can run to the ambo (IE. stair chair, board/collar,CPAP, etc.) 6. When the ambo arrives they can get in and start care, and as the engine arrives they can grab the stretcher, board/collar, moniter*, etc.)

    On my Dept's ALS engines/trucks there has to be at least 1 paramedic on the rig each shift. The ALS ambos have two medics and they also carry fire suppression equipment such as turnout gear, 2 Air packs, a set of irons, a PW can, and a 6 ft. hook. So with this equipment, a bigger ambulance is required.

    Ambos usually help with water supply, then do primary/secondary search, or anything else IC wants them to do. Our medics rotate between the ambo and the engine/trucks. If you drive the ambo, next shift you are riding the officers seat and are the "attendant on the ambo", next shift you are 1 of the 2 guys in the back of the engine/ truck (4 man engines/trucks). End of dissuasion, FD ems trumps private services.
    Last edited by TruckSixFF; 02-26-2010 at 06:15 PM.
    FDNY 343 9/11/01 WILL Never Forget!

    (W-6)

    "We Lucky Few We Band of Brothers." William Shakespeare

    "let no man's ghost return to say his training let him down. "

    D-P-T

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    TruckSixFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A Great place USA, which means not West Coast...!
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    I read the First Post and skipped the rest..........

    There is no Reasonable Way to Handle Emergency Medical Services in the Field except to have all Ambulances Owned and operated by the Fire Department, preferably with an Ambulance located in every Fire Station. Period. End of Story.

    What about Private EMS? They should be relegated to Non-Emergency work such as Inter-Facility Transfers.

    It's rare that I'll stand up and say that I have the Best Answer or the One way is better than others, but this is that exception. I firmly believe there is no better way to provide EMS to a community than thru the Fire Department.
    Delete post...doubled posted by mistake. Sorry
    FDNY 343 9/11/01 WILL Never Forget!

    (W-6)

    "We Lucky Few We Band of Brothers." William Shakespeare

    "let no man's ghost return to say his training let him down. "

    D-P-T

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    100% agreement with Harve on this one. We changed over back in the 70's, now entire dept is fully integrated. About 75% FF/Paramedics ride either type of unit.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Of course if the Fire Department were to lose 75% of its work then it would have to cut staff by 75%. And if the Ambulance service was eliminated then you would lose an equal number of jobs. So the jobs are a wash. The savings to the taxpayer would be higher on the city side as the average FF makes $113,000 while the private Paramedics make $60,000. As a consumer, the choice is obvious.
    ahh..there it is. Can never make any post without accusing FD's of being overpaid and padding runs for staffing. Too bad fire department staffing is based on getting enough Firemen on scene within a certain time limit, while maintaining some form of coverage for the response district. But thats fire protection 101, so I understand your ignorance on the subject.

  22. #22
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    I'd prefer to see STRONG BLS from the suppression pieces, and voluntary (as in not mandated to be) strong ALS on the bus.
    Too many medics = dilution of skills.
    I will agree with the rest of the group when I say that the privates should be relegated to IFTs, but those running EMS should want to be there, not have to be doing EMS cause it gets them a job as a fireman.

    Just my 3 cents from the cheap seats.
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    ahh..there it is. Can never make any post without accusing FD's of being overpaid and padding runs for staffing.
    It's called being a TROLL. From the forum guidelines...

    DO NOT POST if you only intend to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Of course, nothing is ever done about it. That's why these forums are nothing but a joke now.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    TruckSixFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A Great place USA, which means not West Coast...!
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLSboy View Post
    I'd prefer to see STRONG BLS from the suppression pieces, and voluntary (as in not mandated to be) strong ALS on the bus.
    Too many medics = dilution of skills.
    I will agree with the rest of the group when I say that the privates should be relegated to IFTs, but those running EMS should want to be there, not have to be doing EMS cause it gets them a job as a fireman.

    Just my 3 cents from the cheap seats.
    How is too many medics bad? I would rather have 6 (2 box, 4 engine) medics working a full arrest, a good trauma, or any call for the matter, then 2 medics, and 4 EMT's. How does that effect skills. Let me know?
    FDNY 343 9/11/01 WILL Never Forget!

    (W-6)

    "We Lucky Few We Band of Brothers." William Shakespeare

    "let no man's ghost return to say his training let him down. "

    D-P-T

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    safdkiltie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    It's called being a TROLL. From the forum guidelines...

    DO NOT POST if you only intend to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Of course, nothing is ever done about it. That's why these forums are nothing but a joke now.

    In some cases ( in my short time here ), I have to say Crow's posts are actually not as bad as everyone makes out...IF everyone can stay cool. Using this thread as an example: this is a question or concern that ANY member of the public could pose to any member of the fire service, whether you run EMS or not, at any time. This is a good place to hammer out the details of a good argument "for" and to pick up and steal bits of other folks' arguments.
    If you go flying off the handle: " TROLL...IF YOU WERE A FIREMAN, YOU'D UNDERSTAND... etc...", then yeah, nobody's doing anybody any good. BUT, if you treat each statement ( save for the most absurd [ up to the individual to decide what that is, I guess ] ) with the gravity you would if it were from someone walking into your firehouse with the same question or concern, there's actually some use.
    A PR exercise, if you will.
    I thought this was a pretty good one.







    Or am I just being silly?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Did you respond to WTC???
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 07:28 PM
  2. NFPA Info for SAFER...
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2005, 11:29 PM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 03-03-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 07:42 AM
  4. Emergency Operations Center: The Power Company
    By Dalmatian90 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2003, 08:33 AM
  5. Civilian Fire Fatalities
    By DCFF in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-08-2002, 08:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register