Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

kjphou@... writes:

>

> Second, the employees of privates deserve the same recognition as public

> agencies as they are performing the same tasks and whom their paycheck

> comes

> from should not be a disqualifying factor. THIS MONEY IS GENERATED FROM MY

> TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

>

Just a thought, but doesn't everyone pay taxes? So all of the plumbers,

accountants, lawyers, car salesmen deserve something from the taxpayers and

not just those that are employed by government. They pay taxes too! I am

not sure where all of you are gong with this? Maybe you could enlighten me.

Andy Foote

City of Beaumont EMS

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

kjphou@... writes:

>

> I can only guess that you have not spent a great deal of time in EMS with

> the your support of EMS personnel working for private providers should not

> be eligible for *any* public benefits (death benefits, inclusion in TPC

> definitions, etc.), regardless of the scope of their activities in EMS.

>

>

Maybe you mean that since we are all working for the public that you should

get a paycheck each week from the taxpayers also, self including what you

make from the private sector. I can only guess.

Andy Foote

[Guest guest]

Mike, (and anyone else that agrees with this thought process)

I can only guess that you have not spent a great deal of time in EMS with

the your support of EMS personnel working for private providers should not

be eligible for *any* public benefits (death benefits, inclusion in TPC

definitions, etc.), regardless of the scope of their activities in EMS.

First of all you have as well as other must have this false perception that

all privates must be like Rural Metro or Laidlaw.....not the case revenues

are shrinking and is only going to get worst just because a private is for

profit does not mean that the owners live like Trump.

Second, the employees of privates deserve the same recognition as public

agencies as they are performing the same tasks and whom their paycheck comes

from should not be a disqualifying factor. THIS MONEY IS GENERATED FROM MY

TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

Just as in the WTC disaster, I still pissed that no recognition has been

given to the private agencies staff members that were lost, WHERE THE HELL

is the relief fund for those spouses and now single parent children.

I am sorry but for the spin doctor or Enstein that came up with this is

wrong no matter what kind of twist you want to put on it!

[Guest guest]

Well Andy, if we are going to provide death benifits to public servants

(EMT's Paramedics etc.) then it should be for all of them, not just the few

that work for a pubic agency, in short DO IT FOR EVERYONE OR NOT AT ALL.

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

> In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

> kjphou@... writes:

>

>

> >

> > Second, the employees of privates deserve the same recognition as public

> > agencies as they are performing the same tasks and whom their paycheck

> > comes

> > from should not be a disqualifying factor. THIS MONEY IS GENERATED FROM

MY

> > TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

> >

>

> Just a thought, but doesn't everyone pay taxes? So all of the plumbers,

> accountants, lawyers, car salesmen deserve something from the taxpayers

and

> not just those that are employed by government. They pay taxes too! I am

> not sure where all of you are gong with this? Maybe you could enlighten

me.

>

> Andy Foote

> City of Beaumont EMS

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am not arguing one way or the other, Kenny, but under Mike's

recommendations, wouldn't volunteers be covered by the fact that most

EMS volunteers work for public (city, county, ESD) agencies?

-Noah

----

Noah J. Reiter

Director

Rice University EMS

Office:

Pager:

Fax:

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

And another thing, what about the volunteers in Texas are we going to

exclude them also, hell why don't we call it the Dallas, Houston,

Austin, El

Paso Death benefit package

I any getting away from this before I blow the other pupil

[Guest guest]

And another thing, what about the volunteers in Texas are we going to

exclude them also, hell why don't we call it the Dallas, Houston, Austin, El

Paso Death benefit package

I any getting away from this before I blow the other pupil

[Guest guest]

If they work for a private company, regardless of their function, they are

by definition *not* public servants. I do not doubt that they serve the

public, I do not doubt their commitment. But their employes assumes the

responsibilty for benefits, etc. as a private employer.

Public employers build their offerings based on those public benefits

available to them, reducing their cost and overhead, expanding the packages

they can offer while (usually) more appropriately tending public funds.

What I suggest is this - change the definition of " public servant " for the

purposes of benefits in the emergency services case, etc. to those who

respond to 911 calls, emergencies, etc. (I don't know how to word this for

communities which may not yet have 911) - this would cover anyone who

happens to be responding to a 911 call - would that be an acceptable

" compromise " on how it should be worded?

I do believe that anyone putting their life on the line for others safety

deserves some security for themselves, but I'm not sure that publicly

funding what private companies should cover is the way to go.

Unless, of course, you want to require private companies to allow any and

all public employees to obtain profit sharing, stock options and

private-sector retirement matching benefits from private companies... share

and share alike, you know?

Mike

>

>Reply-To:

>To: < >

>Subject: Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:39:41 -0600

>

>Well Andy, if we are going to provide death benifits to public servants

>(EMT's Paramedics etc.) then it should be for all of them, not just the few

>that work for a pubic agency, in short DO IT FOR EVERYONE OR NOT AT ALL.

>

>

> Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>

>

> > In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

> > kjphou@... writes:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Second, the employees of privates deserve the same recognition as

>public

> > > agencies as they are performing the same tasks and whom their paycheck

> > > comes

> > > from should not be a disqualifying factor. THIS MONEY IS GENERATED

>FROM

>MY

> > > TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

> > >

> >

> > Just a thought, but doesn't everyone pay taxes? So all of the plumbers,

> > accountants, lawyers, car salesmen deserve something from the taxpayers

>and

> > not just those that are employed by government. They pay taxes too! I

>am

> > not sure where all of you are gong with this? Maybe you could enlighten

>me.

> >

> > Andy Foote

> > City of Beaumont EMS

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Actually, most of them are already covered because they are agents of a

political subdivision - county, city, esd or rfpd. They haven't been (and

shouldn't be) left out at all.

The stick part is those private non-profit associations providing services

to areas without a political subdivision... like Cypress Creek EMS, etc.

They provide 9-1-1 care, they have no profit motive/stockholders, yet they

are not agents of a political subdivision - not chartered by county, city or

ESD. How do we fit those folks in?

Also, what about hospital-based EMS folks working directly for

city/county/ESD services? They may have for-profit hospital employers,

non-profit hospital owners, yet they are still funded and work " for " a

political subdivision.

Lots of questions, cloudy answers so far... but a great discussion.

Mike

>

>Reply-To:

>To: < >

>Subject: Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:48:37 -0600

>

>And another thing, what about the volunteers in Texas are we going to

>exclude them also, hell why don't we call it the Dallas, Houston, Austin,

>El

>Paso Death benefit package

>

>I any getting away from this before I blow the other pupil

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As long as I get a share of his company's profits, I get employee-discounted

stock options and his company matches my retirement contributions, that's

fine. <grin>

Mike

>From: rachfoote@...

>Reply-To:

>To:

>Subject: Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST

>

>In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

>kjphou@... writes:

>

>

> >

> > I can only guess that you have not spent a great deal of time in EMS

>with

> > the your support of EMS personnel working for private providers should

>not

> > be eligible for *any* public benefits (death benefits, inclusion in TPC

> > definitions, etc.), regardless of the scope of their activities in EMS.

> >

> >

>

>Maybe you mean that since we are all working for the public that you should

>get a paycheck each week from the taxpayers also, self including what you

>make from the private sector. I can only guess.

>

>Andy Foote

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Without getting into a " let's whip 'em out and measure 'em " debtate, let me

say this... again.

I am *not* against private medics. I am *not* against private EMS. I don't

believe the business model works, but this is America - if you do, then by

all means start the company and make it work, or at least give it a try.

But the minute you file your articles of incorporation, you create a private

entity that is self-determining. You are not a public agency, even though

your agency may serve the public. As such, your finances determine your

offerings, employees, benefits and services. Should your finances not be

able to support your company, you should go out of business, not rely on

taxpayers to bail you out or prop you up simply because a public agency

provides the same or a similar service. Public agencies, by default, LOSE

MONEY. That's why we pay taxes *every* year - to cover the expense of the

services we have deemed necessary - from building roads to defibrillating

grandma at 3AM. And as such, the public supports these agencies by

providing common, group-spanned, dollar-cost-averaged, benefits.

Just like I don't support the public-funding of retirement packages for

Enron employees, I don't support public-funding of benefits for employess of

*any* private corporation, EMS or otherwise. And if you want to do it for

EMS, you have to be willing to do it for EVERYONE. Accountants, janitors,

nurses, UPS guys, mid-level managers, etc.

Mike

>From: rachfoote@...

>Reply-To:

>To:

>Subject: Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST

>

>In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

>kjphou@... writes:

>

>

> >

> > I can only guess that you have not spent a great deal of time in EMS

>with

> > the your support of EMS personnel working for private providers should

>not

> > be eligible for *any* public benefits (death benefits, inclusion in TPC

> > definitions, etc.), regardless of the scope of their activities in EMS.

> >

> >

>

>Maybe you mean that since we are all working for the public that you should

>get a paycheck each week from the taxpayers also, self including what you

>make from the private sector. I can only guess.

>

>Andy Foote

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think Mike has very eloquently listed the basic differences between

Public/Private....without starting another debate!!! Nothing more to say.

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

> >Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST

> >

> >In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

> >kjphou@... writes:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I can only guess that you have not spent a great deal of time in EMS

> >with

> > > the your support of EMS personnel working for private providers should

> >not

> > > be eligible for *any* public benefits (death benefits, inclusion in

TPC

> > > definitions, etc.), regardless of the scope of their activities in

EMS.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >Maybe you mean that since we are all working for the public that you

should

> >get a paycheck each week from the taxpayers also, self including what you

> >make from the private sector. I can only guess.

> >

> >Andy Foote

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 03/22/2002 11:21:13 AM Central Standard Time,

kjphou@... writes:

> Get real Andy, you are totally clueless

>

>

Well, I wondered how long it would take before someone who thought the other

way would get a childlike insult back. I appreciate the debate. Now what do

I call you. Just another medic with a different view. Usually when it gets

to name calling, it is time to back out and talk to the people who feel like

verbal education. Sorry I had to disagree with your point of view.

Andy

[Guest guest]

Hi There:

Sorry to admit I'm one of the folks that usually sits back, reads the messages

generated through the server, then either shake my head or nod in agreement.

This time I am sticking my foot in my mouth. I'm rather good at it.

I have had the opportunity to work in many different environments within the EMS

community, public sector, private sector, hospital-based, etc. The main

difference I have noticed between each is the color of the vehicles, the uniform

worn, and the name at the top of the paycheck. The job is the same. Each

responds to calls in similar ways, works just as hard as the other, and

hopefully, has the same positive outcome.

The argument of public sector versus private sector is easy. If taxing entities

decide to provide these needed services themselves, the private sector

dissappears. No need for them anymore. In lieu of that happening, private

sector providers take on the job. Those private sector folks provide services

to that taxing entity and perform (in most cases) in the same way the taxing

entity would if they were providing the service directly. Doesn't that make

these EMS workers pseudo-public servants? They sweat the same amount; get as

few hours of sleep; tell the same bad jokes; and they are injured or killed by

the same causes. Sounds like the same to me.

To continue this same line of thought, if person " A " working for City of _____

EMS is entitled to such benefits ( and he or she should be), then person " B "

working for ____ EMS, Inc. should be as well.

Thanks for " listening " .

Mike

[Guest guest]

Hey Mike! If you're the " old " Mike from Refugio, private email me.

Long time, no hear. If you're not, ignore this.

Jay Garner

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

> Hi There:

>

> Sorry to admit I'm one of the folks that usually sits back, reads the

messages generated through the server, then either shake my head or nod in

agreement. This time I am sticking my foot in my mouth. I'm rather good at

it.

>

> I have had the opportunity to work in many different environments within

the EMS community, public sector, private sector, hospital-based, etc. The

main difference I have noticed between each is the color of the vehicles,

the uniform worn, and the name at the top of the paycheck. The job is the

same. Each responds to calls in similar ways, works just as hard as the

other, and hopefully, has the same positive outcome.

>

> The argument of public sector versus private sector is easy. If taxing

entities decide to provide these needed services themselves, the private

sector dissappears. No need for them anymore. In lieu of that happening,

private sector providers take on the job. Those private sector folks

provide services to that taxing entity and perform (in most cases) in the

same way the taxing entity would if they were providing the service

directly. Doesn't that make these EMS workers pseudo-public servants? They

sweat the same amount; get as few hours of sleep; tell the same bad jokes;

and they are injured or killed by the same causes. Sounds like the same to

me.

>

> To continue this same line of thought, if person " A " working for City of

_____ EMS is entitled to such benefits ( and he or she should be), then

person " B " working for ____ EMS, Inc. should be as well.

>

> Thanks for " listening " .

>

> Mike

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank You Mike !!!!!!!!!

I think that you have said it best and given some time I could have put all

that in words but this entire issue discrimanates against the EMS staff that

work for a private agency or volunteer.

Anyone that is willing to respond to a the situations that we do is a PUBLIC

SERVANT!

I would like to see those that advocate this stand in front of the general

session of the TDH conference and explain their veiw to the attendence whom

I would specuate would be mostly volunteer!

[Guest guest]

Key word would be " work " , if in fact they are volunteer, no remuneration for

services rendered. That is what their benefit package provides for them 0,

zip zilch notta. I have had the pleasure to work with many of the rural

counties in Texas and many of these communities are at best able to afford

ambulances, supplies, Liability INSURANCE not to mention some of the

luxuries such as a paramedic, cardiac monitor, little things like that.

I am from a small community of 1,900 residents and I am a private provider I

will always stand-up for the volunteers that get little to no recognition or

benefit from doing what they do. After all Stinnett EMS successfully

resuscitation my mother and I will be forever in their debt.

I am proud to day that's where I come from.

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>

> And another thing, what about the volunteers in Texas are we going to

> exclude them also, hell why don't we call it the Dallas, Houston,

> Austin, El

> Paso Death benefit package

>

> I any getting away from this before I blow the other pupil

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Get real Andy, you are totally clue-less

[Guest guest]

To jump in on this bandwagon- I want to make the following points-

Public Provider (government entity- tax/fee funded or gov't subsidized volunteer

service)

Private Provider (hospital based services, companies etc)

PSOB Benefit eligibility-

PSOB Program Effective Dates The effective dates for PSOB Program benefits are

as follows:

Death Benefits

a.. State and local law enforcement officers and firefighters are covered for

line of duty deaths occurring on or after September 29, 1976.

b.. Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are covered for line of

duty deaths occurring on or after October 12, 1984.

c.. Members of Federal, State and local public rescue squads and ambulance

crews are covered for line of duty deaths occurring on or after October 15,

1986.

Disability Benefits

Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, and members of

public rescue squads and ambulance crews are covered for catastrophic injuries

sustained on or after November 29, 1990.

Public Safety Officers Eligible for PSOB Benefits

Under the PSOB Program, a public safety officer is a person serving a public

agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law

enforcement officer, firefighter, or member of a public rescue squad or

ambulance crew. Law enforcement officers include, but are not limited to,

police, corrections, probation, parole, and judicial officers. Volunteer

firefighters and members of volunteer rescue squads and ambulance crews are

covered under the program if they are officially recognized or designated

members of legally organized volunteer fire departments, rescue squads, or

ambulance crews.

A public agency is defined as the United States; any U.S. State; the District of

Columbia; the commonwealth of Puerto Rico; any U.S. Territory or possession; any

unit of local government, any combination of such States or units; and any

department, agency or instrumentality of the foregoing. To be eligible for

benefits, a public safety officer's death or total and permanent disability must

result from injuries sustained in the line of duty. Line of duty is defined in

the PSOB regulations (28 CFR 32) as any action that the public safety officer

whose primary function is crime control or reduction, enforcement of the

criminal law, or suppression of fires is authorized or obligated by law, rule,

regulation, or condition of employment or service to perform. Other public

safety officers---whose primary function is not law enforcement or fire

suppression--must be engaged in their authorized law enforcement, fire

suppression, rescue squad, or ambulance duties when the fatal or disabling

injury is sustained.

Always remember- the State of Texas has the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund.

Goto http://www.oag.state.tx.us to find out more.

Sgt. J. Hoskins

Police Officer

EMT

EMS Instructor

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:24 EST rachfoote@... writes:

> Maybe you mean that since we are all working for the public that you

> should get a paycheck each week from the taxpayers also, self including

> what you make from the private sector. I can only guess.

Those involved in providing emergency care of patients, from a call by a

911 dispatch point, should be eligible.

They are providing a public service, regardless if the check was signed

by a City Treasurer, a corporate CFO, or no check is involved. Some

communities prefer the private for profit; some the public service model,

some volunteer. That is the choice of the citizens who are gettng EMS

care and transport.

The medic on the box is doing the same job, and runs the same risks,

regardless of the patch on the shirt.

God, bless America

No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.

Plato (428 BC - 348 BC), Dialogues, Apology

Larry RN NREMTP

[Guest guest]

Fine. Call me old then not give your e-mail address!

Mike

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

Hey Mike! If you're the " old " Mike from Refugio, private email me.

Long time, no hear. If you're not, ignore this.

Jay Garner

[Guest guest]

Um, his email address is on the FROM line of his message. It's probably

that your email program isn't displaying it. Try looking at File,

Properties or double-clicking on the " friendly name " displayed.

Mike

>

>Reply-To:

>To: < >

>Subject: Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:15:08 -0600

>

>Fine. Call me old then not give your e-mail address!

>

>Mike

> Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>

>

> Hey Mike! If you're the " old " Mike from Refugio, private email me.

> Long time, no hear. If you're not, ignore this.

> Jay Garner

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oops! mailto:jay@...

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>

>

> Hey Mike! If you're the " old " Mike from Refugio, private email me.

> Long time, no hear. If you're not, ignore this.

> Jay Garner

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 03/22/2002 11:21:13 AM Central Standard Time,

> kjphou@... writes:

>

>

> > Get real Andy, you are totally clueless

>

" When one can not refute the message, one can refute the messenger " -

Eurypides

Is an ad hominem attack really necessary?

God, bless America

No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.

Plato (428 BC - 348 BC), Dialogues, Apology

Larry RN NREMTP

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:20:30 EST rachfoote@... writes:

> In a message dated 03/22/2002 11:21:13 AM Central Standard Time,

> kjphou@... writes:

>

>

> > Get real Andy, you are totally clueless

> >

> > but we still love you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>

> Well, I wondered how long it would take before someone who thought

> the other

> way would get a childlike insult back. I appreciate the debate.

> Now what do

> I call you. Just another medic with a different view. Usually when

> it gets

> to name calling, it is time to back out and talk to the people who

> feel like

> verbal education. Sorry I had to disagree with your point of view.

>

> Andy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

all for one and none for all

wetseal

Re: Re: [emsat] Fw: Assault

>

>

> > In a message dated 03/22/2002 09:05:29 AM Central Standard Time,

> > kjphou@... writes:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Second, the employees of privates deserve the same recognition as

>public

> > > agencies as they are performing the same tasks and whom their paycheck

> > > comes

> > > from should not be a disqualifying factor. THIS MONEY IS GENERATED

>FROM

>MY

> > > TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

> > >

> >

> > Just a thought, but doesn't everyone pay taxes? So all of the plumbers,

> > accountants, lawyers, car salesmen deserve something from the taxpayers

>and

> > not just those that are employed by government. They pay taxes too! I

>am

> > not sure where all of you are gong with this? Maybe you could enlighten

>me.

> >

> > Andy Foote

> > City of Beaumont EMS

> >

> >

> >