96 replies to this topic

[Redone]

And that's why you can refuse service. I don't see what the problem is......?

Please explain how you can refuse service under the new proposal to charge for services of a Fire Engine (not an ambulance and not tranported) ??

[Robert Gary]

PROPOSAL
http://www.folsom.ca.us/agendas/MG122521/AS122531/AI122707/DO123151/DO_123151.pdf

Interesting that the proposal seems to presume that fire department personnel are only paid if they are responding to a call. The proposal lists personnel charge at $185/hr and then presents it as a marginal cost. Is the incremental cost of having personnel respond to a call really $185/hr per employee?

-Robert

[caligirlz]

Its very clear from the reaction on this forum that these fees are very much a surprise to the majority of citizens. Most of us didn't realize the city charges for emergency assistance especially after the city took such a public stance against other cities (Sacramento, Roseville) that proposed charging for assistance required for car accidents).

-Robert

I agree with you that the fees are a surprise to many people who are voicing their opinion on this forum, but most likely not to the majority of the citizens in Folsom. They aren't to me. And I can think of a whole lot of other people who are not surprised who don't participate on this forum.

I personally don't have a problem with it. I agree that they should charge for their medical services, whether it be with or without transport.

[firemedic238]

Ok,
As you can tell by my users name I am a Firefighter/Paramedic. I do NOT work for Folsom or a Dept in the Folsom Area. What I do know, is how most Depts work as far as charging for services. I do work for a Dept. that has Paramedic Ambulances.

Most Fire Depts do not transport Patients. Most Cities or countys contract for Ambulance services with private companies like AMR. Both have there Pros and Cons . As with most Medics, I started working as a private Medic and was hired by a Fire Dept. As most Fire Depts, We do not charge for responding to a 911 call. We only charge if we transport a Patient to the hospital. There is no charge if we respond we dress a wound, do a EKG, Vitals or any other assessments. All of our Engines and Truck companies have Paramedics onboard. A patient can always refuse transport and treatment. My Fire Dept is not in it to make a buck. Thats why you pay taxes. AMR is a for profit company.We charge for transport to the hospital. If you live in the District, We do bill your insurance company for transport. My district has choosen not to Bill the patient for anything insurance will not cover. If the patient lives in the district,we see this as a double tax. We will attempt to collect from patients that live outside of the district but, we will never take you to collections or take any other actions like many private Companies will. As a Fire Medic I do believe we get a faster response from the Fire Dept. If a person is not breathing, that person needs care within 4 to 6 mins before they are Dead. so time is a huge issue!!

From what I have seen Folsom Fire is doing a great job! I feel Folsom should keep our Fire Dept as a City Dept. Local control is very important. I don't agree with the response fee!!! I'm ok with the billing for transport but,I have a question for Folsom Fire. If a person driving by, see me crash my car and calls 911. Folsom Fire responds and finds me standing next to my car uninjured and not requesting help do I get billed for a response I did not request?

One last thing. Please remember, This is a city issue!! I'm sure that most if not all of the Firefighter disagree with this policy of billing! This has nothing to do with firefighting or Rescue work that they have trained for and love to do. THIS IS THE CITY TRYING TO SAVE MONEY.

OK now I have vented.

Cheers
The firemedic

[folsom500]

Interesting that the proposal seems to presume that fire department personnel are only paid if they are responding to a call. The proposal lists personnel charge at $185/hr and then presents it as a marginal cost. Is the incremental cost of having personnel respond to a call really $185/hr per employee?

-Robert

No- the proposal used the $185 per hour as an aggregate cost for a fire crew with paramedic. Usually 3 -4 people.

[The Average Joe]

That doesn't seem right...a "standby safety officer" is billed at 95.00/hr.

I would think (like our poster) that most fire personnel are against this.

[camay2327]

The Fire Department Chief proposed this according to the article I put under the Folsom City Council meeting.

I also agree that if the person being transported did not make the call, or someone from the vehicle or home involved did not make the call then they should not be charged.

I have heard vehicle accidents over the wall behind my house, Blue Ravine just over the wall, and I have called 911
a few times to report the accidents. Do I get charged for making the call? Will people just stop calling 911 when
they see an accident and just drive by in hopes that someone else will do it?

Go the the meeting and let them know what you think.

[Robert Gary]

No- the proposal used the $185 per hour as an aggregate cost for a fire crew with paramedic. Usually 3 -4 people.

I don't follow. You're saying that if those 3-4 people do not arrive on scene the fire department saves $185/hr in their salaries?

-Robert

[folsom500]

I don't follow. You're saying that if those 3-4 people do not arrive on scene the fire department saves $185/hr in their salaries?

-Robert

Of course not - Sure there is the cost of taking the engine out - sometimes 2 that would be extra costs to the FD, but the study and the proposal using the $185 as part of the $225 proposed charge is for salary already paid to these personnel.

So in effect - yes - the persons involved, if they live within Folsom, would be charged for the taxes that already pay for this service PLUS the $225 per occurance if they are called out on your behalf. If you read the summary you would see some other locations also have this type of charge.

Cam asked a good question relating to how and why the charge would be applied if it was not the person involved that called 911.

[maestro]

Is it just me or is this shocking to others.

If this city has the money to go south of highway 50 and develop,
and make north of 50 pay for the engineering, development, and higher utility costs,
why can't it afford to provide basic emergency services to tax payers.

Tax bills are huge in many cases. How can there not be enough money for the basics
when there is enough money to pay huge salaries for development dept. employees.

They also make us pay a huge bill for medical insurance coverage for all present/past
councilmen and their families -- for life.

This is not a choice of no services or a new fee. This is a clear choice of this council
choosing whom they wish to force us to support and subsidize. IMO

[Robert Gary]

Of course not - Sure there is the cost of taking the engine out - sometimes 2 that would be extra costs to the FD, but the study and the proposal using the $185 as part of the $225 proposed charge is for salary already paid to these personnel.

So in effect - yes - the persons involved, if they live within Folsom, would be charged for the taxes that already pay for this service PLUS the $225 per occurance if they are called out on your behalf. If you read the summary you would see some other locations also have this type of charge.

Cam asked a good question relating to how and why the charge would be applied if it was not the person involved that called 911.

But that was the point. The proposal to the council presents the $185 as a direct cost for the response. But that appears to be incorrect (do you agree)?

-Robert

This is not a choice of no services or a new fee. This is a clear choice of this council
choosing whom they wish to force us to support and subsidize. IMO

I did send an email to Kerri to ask her position on this. She hasn't gotten back to me and may not before tonight's meeting. However, in general she's very responsive.

-Robert

[Bombero]

This is the solution to the over promised under funded exorbitant pension funds that we cannot afford, so we get charged more... and more.... and more....

/ignore "the dude"