Re: Re: City Ordinances

[Guest guest]

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers have

to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard time

knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called “

sole-provider†ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to provide

911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be regulation.

We

aren’t going to change that.

I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers have

to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard time

knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called “

sole-provider†ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to provide

911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be regulation.

We

aren’t going to change that.

I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

€œ

sole-provider†ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

aren’t going to change that.

I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

€œ

sole-provider†ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

aren’t going to change that.

I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

€œ

sole-provider†ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

aren’t going to change that.

I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

Wes,

My argument is not about safety or health or even emergency calls. I agree

that a city or county should have the right to determine who responds to the

emergency calls. What I am arguing is the restriction of the non-emergency

calls. A permit system is great at weeding out the unscrupulous providers.

However, to fully exclude properly permitted and operated services from doing

business in an area is borderline folly.

If a citizen lives in say Arlington or Forth Worth for example or even in

east Texas who requires ambulance transport for dialysis or to another

hospital, that person or their legal guardian should have the right to choose

their

transport provider.

I am not discussing city permits, state permits, equipment or even pro forma

cash flow statements--those are turned in to get the original

permits/licensure or during a public bid. I am discussing what appears to be

the outright

restriction of trade.

Is it in the interest of the public safety (for the sake of argument) for a

public utility model to have a history of not meeting response time

requirements for emergency calls, delay their non-emergency calls for several

hours

and delay the opening of sorely needed ICU beds, ER beds or med-surg beds?

Would it not be in the best interest, health and safety of the citizens to have

a list of approved alternates for the non emergency work or even emergency

overload?

[Guest guest]

Wes,

My argument is not about safety or health or even emergency calls. I agree

that a city or county should have the right to determine who responds to the

emergency calls. What I am arguing is the restriction of the non-emergency

calls. A permit system is great at weeding out the unscrupulous providers.

However, to fully exclude properly permitted and operated services from doing

business in an area is borderline folly.

If a citizen lives in say Arlington or Forth Worth for example or even in

east Texas who requires ambulance transport for dialysis or to another

hospital, that person or their legal guardian should have the right to choose

their

transport provider.

I am not discussing city permits, state permits, equipment or even pro forma

cash flow statements--those are turned in to get the original

permits/licensure or during a public bid. I am discussing what appears to be

the outright

restriction of trade.

Is it in the interest of the public safety (for the sake of argument) for a

public utility model to have a history of not meeting response time

requirements for emergency calls, delay their non-emergency calls for several

hours

and delay the opening of sorely needed ICU beds, ER beds or med-surg beds?

Would it not be in the best interest, health and safety of the citizens to have

a list of approved alternates for the non emergency work or even emergency

overload?

[Guest guest]

Wes,

My argument is not about safety or health or even emergency calls. I agree

that a city or county should have the right to determine who responds to the

emergency calls. What I am arguing is the restriction of the non-emergency

calls. A permit system is great at weeding out the unscrupulous providers.

However, to fully exclude properly permitted and operated services from doing

business in an area is borderline folly.

If a citizen lives in say Arlington or Forth Worth for example or even in

east Texas who requires ambulance transport for dialysis or to another

hospital, that person or their legal guardian should have the right to choose

their

transport provider.

I am not discussing city permits, state permits, equipment or even pro forma

cash flow statements--those are turned in to get the original

permits/licensure or during a public bid. I am discussing what appears to be

the outright

restriction of trade.

Is it in the interest of the public safety (for the sake of argument) for a

public utility model to have a history of not meeting response time

requirements for emergency calls, delay their non-emergency calls for several

hours

and delay the opening of sorely needed ICU beds, ER beds or med-surg beds?

Would it not be in the best interest, health and safety of the citizens to have

a list of approved alternates for the non emergency work or even emergency

overload?

[Guest guest]

Wes,

There are those on this list who would say that private calls are not EMS.

[Guest guest]

Wes,

There are those on this list who would say that private calls are not EMS.

[Guest guest]

Wes,

There are those on this list who would say that private calls are not EMS.

[Guest guest]

I understand, and agree. In this scenerio, the city's population is in the

low tens of thousands (I believe Tyler is reaching towards 100,000); I

appologize for not providing that piece of information.

I agree that a commission that works towards serving the medical needs of

the city would certainly keep the best interests of the patients and local

hospital/nursing homes in mind. In previous posts, that was my hope. The

local franchising application process should be directed by a group of

medical professionals (a commission, per se) who understand the needs of the

community and can set a level of standards that all transferring services

must adhere to. But the state does not require such organizations that I am

aware of, and as I've learned, " other influences " will instead decide the

level, quality, and frequency of care a patient is entitled to... even when

medical professionals have voiced their opinions to the proper authorities

many times over. They apparently have little bite (individually) when

politics are powerful, so yes, a commission that cannot be ignored is needed

when considering what it best for the patient. Problem is, I don't think

the state requires it of the smaller cities.

Re: Re: City Ordinances

The same argument can be made about the city council voting to build a

building, road, bridge, sewer plant, etc. Elected officials are elected to

make decisions that affect our daily lives. They can't be experts in every

field. Therefore they rely on commissions, consultants, and other experts

to assist in the decision making process.

Here in Tyler we have commissions for just about everything known to man.

On those commissions sit appointed citizens that have expertise in the

fields in which they provide oversight and advice.

As a private citizen you have the right to talk to your elected officials

about the decisions they make for you. As a healthcare professional, they

should appreciate your input on topics where you have professional

expertise.

Tater

[Guest guest]

I understand, and agree. In this scenerio, the city's population is in the

low tens of thousands (I believe Tyler is reaching towards 100,000); I

appologize for not providing that piece of information.

I agree that a commission that works towards serving the medical needs of

the city would certainly keep the best interests of the patients and local

hospital/nursing homes in mind. In previous posts, that was my hope. The

local franchising application process should be directed by a group of

medical professionals (a commission, per se) who understand the needs of the

community and can set a level of standards that all transferring services

must adhere to. But the state does not require such organizations that I am

aware of, and as I've learned, " other influences " will instead decide the

level, quality, and frequency of care a patient is entitled to... even when

medical professionals have voiced their opinions to the proper authorities

many times over. They apparently have little bite (individually) when

politics are powerful, so yes, a commission that cannot be ignored is needed

when considering what it best for the patient. Problem is, I don't think

the state requires it of the smaller cities.

Re: Re: City Ordinances

The same argument can be made about the city council voting to build a

building, road, bridge, sewer plant, etc. Elected officials are elected to

make decisions that affect our daily lives. They can't be experts in every

field. Therefore they rely on commissions, consultants, and other experts

to assist in the decision making process.

Here in Tyler we have commissions for just about everything known to man.

On those commissions sit appointed citizens that have expertise in the

fields in which they provide oversight and advice.

As a private citizen you have the right to talk to your elected officials

about the decisions they make for you. As a healthcare professional, they

should appreciate your input on topics where you have professional

expertise.

Tater

[Guest guest]

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

To see what a city would look like with municipal ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of ExLngHrn@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

To see what a city would look like with municipal ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of ExLngHrn@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

To see what a city would look like with municipal ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of ExLngHrn@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

That should have read, " To see what a city would look like without municipal

ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said. "

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:22 AM

To:

Subject: RE: Re: City Ordinances

To see what a city would look like with municipal ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of ExLngHrn@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

That should have read, " To see what a city would look like without municipal

ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said. "

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:22 AM

To:

Subject: RE: Re: City Ordinances

To see what a city would look like with municipal ordinances that restrict

city services, just drive across the border to Matamoras, Reynosa, Nuevo

Progresso, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Ojinaga, and Juraez. Enough said.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of ExLngHrn@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances

Perhaps not, but they tell that to taxicabs, telephone companies, electric

utilities, and cable TV providers. What makes us any better than them?

-Wes

Re: Re: City Ordinances

Good analogy Wes, but does the city tell plumbers, sorry, we already have a

plumber in this town and we don't need any more?

Mike

[Guest guest]

When someone breaks in your house...do you call any police department you want

or does the municipality have that monopolized? What about when you have a

fire? Open up the phone book to AAAFire Department and call them?

The fact of the matter is, EMS still has a place in public safety (both

emergency and non-emergency) and as such, municipalities and/or counties and/or

states can (and in my opinion should) not only mandate who is going to provide

this service but also who is NOT.

This is one area in Texas where we are behind the curve in my opinion.

Dudley

Re: Re: City Ordinances

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

canââ,¬â " ¢t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

â,¬Å "

sole-providerââ,¬Â ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isnââ,¬â " ¢t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

arenââ,¬â " ¢t going to change that.

Iââ,¬â " ¢m not picking sides, just saying thatââ,¬â " ¢s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

When someone breaks in your house...do you call any police department you want

or does the municipality have that monopolized? What about when you have a

fire? Open up the phone book to AAAFire Department and call them?

The fact of the matter is, EMS still has a place in public safety (both

emergency and non-emergency) and as such, municipalities and/or counties and/or

states can (and in my opinion should) not only mandate who is going to provide

this service but also who is NOT.

This is one area in Texas where we are behind the curve in my opinion.

Dudley

Re: Re: City Ordinances

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

canââ,¬â " ¢t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

â,¬Å "

sole-providerââ,¬Â ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isnââ,¬â " ¢t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

arenââ,¬â " ¢t going to change that.

Iââ,¬â " ¢m not picking sides, just saying thatââ,¬â " ¢s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

When someone breaks in your house...do you call any police department you want

or does the municipality have that monopolized? What about when you have a

fire? Open up the phone book to AAAFire Department and call them?

The fact of the matter is, EMS still has a place in public safety (both

emergency and non-emergency) and as such, municipalities and/or counties and/or

states can (and in my opinion should) not only mandate who is going to provide

this service but also who is NOT.

This is one area in Texas where we are behind the curve in my opinion.

Dudley

Re: Re: City Ordinances

That's because if they are called, they go do the job, yes they are licensed and

regulated but a private citizen can call any plumber they want. UNLIKE this

thing going on with EMS where a City will tell you who you can and cannot use to

provide non emergency medical service. this is the point I am trying to make.

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

I was attempting to make an analogy. Plumbers, like some ambulance

services, may be simultaneously regulated by both the state and the

municipality.

However, I've never heard plumbers complaining that people don't have " freedom

of choice. "

-Wes

In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:41:59 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

try the yellow pages.. (is this spelled correctly?). ANd what did plumbers

have to do with this??

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you

since you didn't sign your post.)

Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a

" some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your

reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually,

it's not

a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the

power to regulate EMS.

EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I

wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the

state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing

before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building?

I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either

in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a

particular ambulance service?

Best regards,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time,

asearch4reason@... writes:

So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let

any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING

CITIZEN

calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being

" monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition

causes

the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private

companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls.

This is a

VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some

what

dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs,

there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants

full

control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY

transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard

time knowing

that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me

who

I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family.

As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT

for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call

for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I

damn

well please, this is my right as an American CItizen.

Stay safe everyone....

" E. Tate " wrote:

The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can,

canââ,¬â " ¢t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some

extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called â

â,¬Å "

sole-providerââ,¬Â ordinances.

The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their

citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS

coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to

provide 911

coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of

the

past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing

entity

can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important

services.

Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition

causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money

just isnââ,¬â " ¢t there to sustain any single company. There must be

regulation. We

arenââ,¬â " ¢t going to change that.

Iââ,¬â " ¢m not picking sides, just saying thatââ,¬â " ¢s how the cookie

crumbles.

Tater

fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a

free market economy trumps a

city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or

cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request

originating on private property and being paid for privately??

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]