Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 >>Because you work for the city makes you no better, and no more noble than a medic working for a private or volunteer service! We all deserve the same treatment!<< I'm late entering this thread, but I will say something in defense of EMS in the private sector. Customer service becomes a MUCH bigger concern if your livelihood is directly affected by the people you serve. Piss them off, and you lose profits. If you work for a public entity, it isn't so much a concern because the person that called 911 is your customer only in the abstract sense. Of course, YMMV... -- Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc. MEDIC Training Solutions http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 It's much like > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones > when workers are > present. You do realize Mike that alot of these construction workers are not a part of TXDOT? Many of these are working for private companies (FOR-PROFIT) that have contracts with TXDOT? So, based on your opinions, the speeding tickets should not be doubled when they are not employed by the state. Salvador Capuchino Jr EMT-Paramedic --- Mike wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > Are you serious?? Are you really saying that since > someone chooses > > to work for a company that is not affiliated with > a governmental > > entity that they really don't deserve to be > protected? > > I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues > and I truly hope > > that I have misunderstood your meaning here. > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't qualify for the > same enhanced > punishment range as those working for a government > entity, or under > the color of government through contract, etc. > otherwise, why not > just make assault a Felony against EVERYONE? Why > should someone > engaged in a private, for-profit business be > afforded an enhancement/ > protection simply based on the type of business they > choose to be > engaged in? > > We make this distinction because we recognize that > those providing > services under the auspices of government are > working directly for > the people, and as such, need to be more protected. > It's much like > we enhance speed limit fines in construction zones > when workers are > present. Private employees, government contract. > That same > " enhanced punishment " doesn't apply, however, when > they're working on > their lawn at home or putting in a new mailbox for > their house - at > that point, they're not serving the public interest > anymore and the > " standard " public punishments apply to offenses > committed against them. > > In short, a " benefit " of being a public provider or > providing service > under public auspices is that the penalties for > committing assault > against you are enhanced, making it less likely that > people will > assault you (or will at least think harder about it > as they're facing > more punishment for doing so). > > Mike > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Wes wrote: Regardless, I don't necessarily believe that performing a transfer deserves the same coercive punishment that assaulting a provider responding to a 911 call. I too have the same feelings until I look at the public agencies that do both 911 and non-emergency transfers. Then it doesn't make sense...how can you separate it at that point? And if it is just separated by employer...then I can't see the separation based upon the type of call they run... Dudley Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS Wes, Not wishing to be confrontational here but what evidence do you have that the industry has or has not done anything to " drive the shysters out " . I hope that your argument is not that since crimes are still being committed that is proof that nothing has been done. As an esteemed barrister I am sure that you see the folly of that line of thinking. Should we assume that since there is a long list of attorneys being punished and disbarred then there must be no efforts to drive the shysters out of the legal profession. Maybe that fact that there is a line of people getting in trouble and either disbarred or thrown in jail does mean that there is something being done in both the legal and EMS professions. If no EMS providers were being raided and prosecuted, I would be more concerned that no one was looking. Could it be that there are more crooks in both professions than there are people to chase them down? Also, in what ways do you see EMS " dramatically " improving if we drive the shysters out? Pretty bold statement and I hope you are right but I would like more facts and info about how you arrived at this conclusion. Dave _ExLngHrn@..._ (mailto:ExLngHrn@...) wrote: If the private EMS services would spend half as much time worrying about driving the shysters out of their midst as they are worrying about their status as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. Recent Activity 2 New Members Visit Your Group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 So should TXDOT contract out for it's responsibilities or provide it's own? Salvador Capuchino Jr EMT-paramedic --- Mike wrote: > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this > line of PUBLIC > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to > whom ever calls, > > where ever it is, and it should make no difference > the provider > > they chose to work for. > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies > exist to make > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist > not for the > public good, but to make money for the owners, > founders or stockholders. > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best > care possible > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be > free from > > potential harm or at least know that if they are > violated the > > violator will be punished. > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, > just like any other > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > involves serious bodily > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any > other " regular " > person that gets assaulted. > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > limiting protection we > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys > don't differentiate > > between Private or Government employees; we wear > the same patch for > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red. > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking > at limiting > protection. People are looking at creating yet > another " exception " > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault > is still > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass > this, why not make it > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He > takes tickets from > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS > drivers? They > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza > delivery guys - they > deliver pizza to the public. > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between > private and public > EMS providers is indicative of several other > problems, the first of > which is that they don't know there's no > " requirement " that their > government provide them with service at all, and no > idea that private > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who > must, as a matter of > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs > running on > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid > directly by the > public). It's also indicative of the problem that > we allow private > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the > *only* public > service that does so. There are NO private police > and NO private > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers > cannot get the > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason > for that - they're > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the > public to slip into > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS > as a service to > the public, have allowed (and in some places, > 'required') private > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not > saying that > private providers don't do a good job filling the > gap - just that we > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the > gap, and this law > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS > providers equal, > which they shouldn't be if we really want the public > to see EMS as a > public service that *must* be provided rather than a > " choice " between > providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers > to benefit from > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as > a whole.... > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just > doesn't give that > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > Mike > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Hey Mike, What about when a city chooses to do transfers and 911? Now they are out to make profit. So how does that play into your opinions? Salvador capuchino Jr EMT-Paramedic --- THEDUDMAN@... wrote: > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies > exist to make > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist > not for the > public good, but to make money for the owners, > founders or stockholders. > > SO it doesn't apply to PD officers, paid > firefighters or paid EMS personnel? Seems they are > all in this for the money too...much like your > earlier post about what to do with the extra money > now that minimum wage is going up...face it...no > matter what....it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY$$$$$ > > Dudley > > > Re: HB495-Proposed Bill > relating to EMS > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into this > line of PUBLIC > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to > whom ever calls, > > where ever it is, and it should make no difference > the provider > > they chose to work for. > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS companies > exist to make > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist > not for the > public good, but to make money for the owners, > founders or stockholders. > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best > care possible > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to be > free from > > potential harm or at least know that if they are > violated the > > violator will be punished. > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, just > like any other > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it involves > serious bodily > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like any > other " regular " > person that gets assaulted. > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > limiting protection we > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys > don't differentiate > > between Private or Government employees; we wear > the same patch for > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed red. > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking at > limiting > protection. People are looking at creating yet > another " exception " > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. Assault > is still > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass this, > why not make it > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He > takes tickets from > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS > drivers? They > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza delivery > guys - they > deliver pizza to the public. > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between > private and public > EMS providers is indicative of several other > problems, the first of > which is that they don't know there's no > " requirement " that their > government provide them with service at all, and no > idea that private > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who > must, as a matter of > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " vs > running on > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid > directly by the > public). It's also indicative of the problem that we > allow private > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is the > *only* public > service that does so. There are NO private police > and NO private > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers > cannot get the > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason > for that - they're > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the > public to slip into > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS > as a service to > the public, have allowed (and in some places, > 'required') private > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not > saying that > private providers don't do a good job filling the > gap - just that we > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the > gap, and this law > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public EMS > providers equal, > which they shouldn't be if we really want the public > to see EMS as a > public service that *must* be provided rather than a > " choice " between > providing and not providing, and allowing profiteers > to benefit from > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry as > a whole.... > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just > doesn't give that > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > Mike > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of > free safety and security tools, free access to > millions of high-quality videos from across the web, > free AOL Mail and more. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Gene, Like I said, what about when the city engages in transfers (dialysis)? Now they are out to break even or make a profit as opposed to just engaging in 911. This is why EMS in Texas is getting nowhere, people within our own ranks are bringing us down. Everyone should be glad that a bill is being sponsored for our own good and safety. No instead we have those that would be upset because public is better than private or public should only be protected. Maybe TDSHS should offer public EMT, private EMT, etc. licenses. Salvador Capuchino Jr EMT-Paramedic --- wegandy1938@... wrote: > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational > reason to mandate > enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS > providers, any more than there > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > plumbers. > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > providers and private ones. > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually > must meet budgetary > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > enterprise, and as such, is a business > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > status. Private EMS > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > (Well, they may, but their badges are > bogus.). > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > plumbers do not. As Mike > points out, they can have ambulances that can run > with lights and sirens and > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > responsible for their > employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover > their losses from negligent acts. > They can purchase health insurance for their > employees. They are a > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > do not qualify for governmental > immunities. > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not the > contracted exclusive > provider for a city or county should have any > emergency rights whatsoever. > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > services at some time, and now is the > best time to do it. > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > County, and 200 in > County, things are seriously out of control. > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > exclusive right to provide > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should > be some provision to afford > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > entity, but it should be > limited, if the provider is a for profit company. > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > companies, but they ought not > to enjoy special status given to governmental > entities. > > Gene G. > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > paramedicop@... writes: > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > wrote: > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into > this line of PUBLIC > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to > whom ever calls, > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > difference the provider > > > they chose to work for. > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > companies exist to make > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist > not for the > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > founders or stockholders. > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best > care possible > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to > be free from > > > potential harm or at least know that if they are > violated the > > > violator will be punished. > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, > just like any other > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > involves serious bodily > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like > any other " regular " > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > limiting protection we > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys > don't differentiate > > > between Private or Government employees; we wear > the same patch for > > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed > red. > > > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking > at limiting > > protection. People are looking at creating yet > another " exception " > > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. > Assault is still > > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass > this, why not make it > > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He > takes tickets from > > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS > drivers? They > > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza > delivery guys - they > > deliver pizza to the public. > > > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between > private and public > > EMS providers is indicative of several other > problems, the first of > > which is that they don't know there's no > " requirement " that their > > government provide them with service at all, and > no idea that private > > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who > must, as a matter of > > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " > vs running on > > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid > directly by the > > public). It's also indicative of the problem that > we allow private > > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is > the *only* public > > service that does so. There are NO private police > and NO private > > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers > cannot get the > > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason > for that - they're > > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the > public to slip into > > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS > as a service to > > the public, have allowed (and in some places, > 'required') private > > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not > saying that > > private providers don't do a good job filling the > gap - just that we > > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the > gap, and this law > > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public > EMS providers equal, > > which they shouldn't be if we really want the > public to see EMS as a > > public service that *must* be provided rather than > a " choice " between > > providing and not providing, and allowing > profiteers to benefit from > > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry > as a whole.... > > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just > doesn't give that > > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas County, and 200 in County, things are seriously out of control. Question is if this were to happen, are the public 911 providers ready to take the hundreds of patients who need an ambulance to go to dialysis and doctor's appointments to their respective appointments? I think not because then they will not be available to cover their 911 calls. And if they do, now they are going to cross that line you talk about between profit and non-profit. Now they are going to make a profit which should disqualify them from any protection afforded an employee who works for an entity who is not out to make a profit. I know of one city that has one ambulance and yet they are out doing dialysis transfers. If they happen to be on a transfer when a 911 call comes in then they ask for mutual aid froma nother city or private provider. Is this fair? This service is actually out to make a profit because it is a small city. Salvador Capuchino Jr EMT-Paramedic --- wegandy1938@... wrote: > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no rational > reason to mandate > enhanced penalties for those who assault private EMS > providers, any more than there > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > plumbers. > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > providers and private ones. > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it usually > must meet budgetary > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > enterprise, and as such, is a business > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > status. Private EMS > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > (Well, they may, but their badges are > bogus.). > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > plumbers do not. As Mike > points out, they can have ambulances that can run > with lights and sirens and > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > responsible for their > employees, and they can purchase insurance to cover > their losses from negligent acts. > They can purchase health insurance for their > employees. They are a > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > do not qualify for governmental > immunities. > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not the > contracted exclusive > provider for a city or county should have any > emergency rights whatsoever. > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > services at some time, and now is the > best time to do it. > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > County, and 200 in > County, things are seriously out of control. > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > exclusive right to provide > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there should > be some provision to afford > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > entity, but it should be > limited, if the provider is a for profit company. > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > companies, but they ought not > to enjoy special status given to governmental > entities. > > Gene G. > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > paramedicop@... writes: > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > wrote: > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get into > this line of PUBLIC > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a SERVANT to > whom ever calls, > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > difference the provider > > > they chose to work for. > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > companies exist to make > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they exist > not for the > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > founders or stockholders. > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the best > care possible > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve to > be free from > > > potential harm or at least know that if they are > violated the > > > violator will be punished. > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor assault, > just like any other > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > involves serious bodily > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just like > any other " regular " > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > limiting protection we > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad guys > don't differentiate > > > between Private or Government employees; we wear > the same patch for > > > level of EMS certification, and we all bleed > red. > > > > Maybe that's where you're lost. Nobody is looking > at limiting > > protection. People are looking at creating yet > another " exception " > > where someone gets punished MORE, not LESS. > Assault is still > > assault, and still a criminal act. If you pass > this, why not make it > > the same for the ticket taker at the movies? He > takes tickets from > > the public to provide entertainment. How about UPS > drivers? They > > deliver packages to the public. Maybe pizza > delivery guys - they > > deliver pizza to the public. > > > > The fact that the public can't distinguish between > private and public > > EMS providers is indicative of several other > problems, the first of > > which is that they don't know there's no > " requirement " that their > > government provide them with service at all, and > no idea that private > > EMS providers work for for-profit companies who > must, as a matter of > > finance, maintain a balance sheet " in the black " > vs running on > > government funds (i.e. taxes, approved and paid > directly by the > > public). It's also indicative of the problem that > we allow private > > providers to operate emergency vehicles - EMS is > the *only* public > > service that does so. There are NO private police > and NO private > > fire departments in Texas. Private EMS providers > cannot get the > > " Texas Exempt " license plates... there's a reason > for that - they're > > PRIVATE providers, not public. We've allowed the > public to slip into > > apathy, and through a lack of effort to " sell " EMS > as a service to > > the public, have allowed (and in some places, > 'required') private > > providers to slip into the gap we created. I'm not > saying that > > private providers don't do a good job filling the > gap - just that we > > should do as little as possible to ENCOURAGE the > gap, and this law > > ENCOURAGES the gap by making private and public > EMS providers equal, > > which they shouldn't be if we really want the > public to see EMS as a > > public service that *must* be provided rather than > a " choice " between > > providing and not providing, and allowing > profiteers to benefit from > > a lack of public understanding and interest. > > > > > This could be bad for everyone in the industry > as a whole.... > > Why? It doesn't decriminalize assault, it just > doesn't give that > > extra " oomph " for pummeling a public servant. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Okay for you upper management types, we are talking about employees biting the hand that feeds them. We have a responsibility to blow the whistle on our employers when they ask us to do something unethical. Question, what about those employees that test positive on a drug test? Aren't you as upper management responsible for reporting this to TDSHS? I know of many services that just fire them or ask them to quit and allow someone else to deal with their illegal activity. What about the employee who steals anothers check and cashes it? When the employer found out they gave the employee the option of getting fired and arrested or quitting. When the employer was asked why he was allowed to walk away they said he had a family. All the employees at the service were really pissed off that this paramedic was allowed to walk away. So once again, aren't you as employers obligated to report this behavior to TDSHS? This guy is now a director for a service in the Valley whose owners were just arrested for Medicare fraud. The guy was also caught buying drugs at a dealer's house in an ambulance by undercover agents. His brother happened to work for the PD and gave him a heads up when his house was going to be raided so he could evacuate his family. They guy was fired or " let go " and allowed to seek employment elsewhere. So again, aren't you as employers obligated to report this activity to TDSHS? Should a service be fined for not reporting these actions? Salvador Capuchino Jr EMT-Paramedic --- ExLngHrn@... wrote: > > Dudley, > > I'm not saying that we all just follow orders. I'm > saying that some do, and > think that merely being an employee protects them. > Unfortunately, this > doesn't always work. > > My hat's off to the whistleblowers. I'm amazed at > the personal courage and > intestinal fortitude that these people show -- and > the consequences they > willingly face. And the whistleblowing doesn't just > extend to " fly by night " > private services, but monkey business and > shennanigans at public employers as > well. > > Unfortunately, the failings of some services (both > public and private) paint > us with the same broad brush as the people who hate > lawyers because of the > ones who advertise on daytime TV. > > Mea culpa. It wasn't my intent to go after any > individual. I was just > stating that some services ruin our reputation -- > and we need to do more to run > these people out. > > Regardless, I don't necessarily believe that > performing a transfer deserves > the same coercive punishment that assaulting a > provider responding to a 911 > call. I can't fully explain why, but intuitively, > there is a big difference > to me. > > -Wes > > In a message dated 1/29/2007 8:21:00 PM Central > Standard Time, > THEDUDMAN@... writes: > > > > > Wes, > > Maybe you are hanging out with a different class of > EMS people than I > am...but I don't know anyone who " just follows > orders " ...we, as EMS Professionals, > are also required to report illegal, unethical > behavior and rules violations. > > I know a multitude of folks who have walked out of > jobs or reported illegal > behaviors when asked to do illegal things. This list > is populated with many > of them too. > > As a relative newbie to this industry, I take > exception to your broad brush > of the entire industry...using such tactics I might > think you personally have > Nifong'ed some innocent individuals today... > > We are not clean by any means...but find me any > " profession " that > is...self-policed or not... > > Dudley > > > > > Re: HB495-Proposed Bill > relating to EMS > > Wes, > > Not wishing to be confrontational here but what > evidence do you have that > the industry has or has not done anything to " drive > the shysters out " . I hope > that your argument is not that since crimes are > still being committed that is > proof that nothing has been done. As an esteemed > barrister I am sure that you > see the folly of that line of thinking. > > Should we assume that since there is a long list of > attorneys being punished > and disbarred then there must be no efforts to drive > the shysters out of the > legal profession. Maybe that fact that there is a > line of people getting in > trouble and either disbarred or thrown in jail does > mean that there is > something being done in both the legal and EMS > professions. If no EMS providers > were being raided and prosecuted, I would be more > concerned that no one was > looking. Could it be that there are more crooks in > both professions than there > are people to chase them down? > > Also, in what ways do you see EMS " dramatically " > improving if we drive the > shysters out? Pretty bold statement and I hope you > are right but I would like > more facts and info about how you arrived at this > conclusion. > > Dave > > _ExLngHrn@..._ (mailto:ExLngHrn@...) wrote: > > If the private EMS services would spend half as > much time worrying about > driving the shysters out of their midst as they are > worrying about their status > as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. > > Recent Activity > > 2 > New Members > > Visit Your Group > SPONSORED LINKS > > Health and wellness in the workplace > Health education professional resource > Health and wellness > Health and wellness promotion > Emergency service > > Give Back > Yahoo! for Good > Get inspired > by a good cause. > > Y! Toolbar > Get it Free! > easy 1-click access > to your groups. > > Yahoo! Groups > Start a group > in 3 easy steps. > Connect with others. > > . > > The comments contained in this correspondence are > the sole responsibility of > === message truncated === ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 So, the determination of protection a medic receives under the law is concluded by how their employer keeps books? The tax laws that apply to that employer? I have been the victim of assault while on duty. I was working for a private service that provided 911 services for a city in the Metroplex. Not only was the patient not charged with a felony secondary to my employer being a private company (contracted by a city), but she didn't even get a ticket for a misdemeanor (that's a whole other story). To this day, I have never been able to wrap my mind around the fact that if she had struck the firefighter standing next to me, it would have been a felony...but my jaw and knee only warranted a misdemeanor (turns out, not even that. Damn lazy lawyers...) When I posted here about it, I got pretty much the same attitude from the same folks here. It was then that I realized that Texas EMS will never reach the level of respect that fire and police have because of our own infighting. To be at the same point in the same argument five years later confirms it for me. When you wonder why no one will join EMSAT or post here or participate in legislation for our industry, perhaps it is because we have all managed to alienate anyone who doesn't do things JUST LIKE I DO. Blaming rookie employees for the wrongs of the employers that hired them for their first EMS gig....that is really special. Connie --- wegandy1938@... wrote: > Sal, your arguments are not persuasive. > > If a municipality undertakes to do all the > transfers, it will have to commit > the resources to do it. To argue " what if " makes > no sense. > > If a private service can make money on transfers, > then a municipal or county > service can do it also. > > It's not true that a municipality can never take in > more money than it > expends for services. > > It's entirely proper for a municipal service to make > money, so long as it > goes into the general fund. That's why cities have > fees for certain services. > They may make money on some, lose money on others, > but it all goes into the > municipal coffers. > > Municipalities have broad powers. They certainly > have the power to limit > private services' access to medical transport, as > has been upheld in the courts > in Texas, and many of them do it. > > If Anytown, Texas, were to take over all EMS calls, > including all transfers, > it would end up hiring the same folks that the > privates had hired. So it has > nothing to do with the value or talents of the folks > who work for either > public or private EMS services. It's all about > where the money goes. > > Gene > In a message dated 1/29/07 9:45:37 PM, > scapuchino@... writes: > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > County, > > and > > 200 in County, things are seriously out of > > control. > > > > Question is if this were to happen, are the public > 911 > > providers ready to take the hundreds of patients > who > > need an ambulance to go to dialysis and doctor's > > appointments to their respective appointments? I > > think not because then they will not be available > to > > cover their 911 calls. And if they do, now they > are > > going to cross that line you talk about between > profit > > and nonprofit. Now they are going to make a profit > > which should disqualify them from any protection > > afforded an employee who works for an entity who > is > > not out to make a profit. I know of one city that > has > > one ambulance and yet they are out doing dialysis > > transfers. If they happen to be on a transfer when > a > > 911 call comes in then they ask for mutual aid > froma > > nother city or private provider. Is this fair? > This > > service is actually out to make a profit because > it is > > a small city. > > Salvador Capuchino Jr > > EMT-Paramedic > > --- wegandy1938@wegandy wrote: > > > > > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no > rational > > > reason to mandate > > > enhanced penalties for those who assault private > EMS > > > providers, any more than there > > > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > > > plumbers. > > > > > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > > > providers and private ones. > > > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it > usually > > > must meet budgetary > > > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > > > enterprise, and as such, is a business > > > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > > > status. Private EMS > > > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > > > (Well, they may, but their badges are > > > bogus.). > > > > > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > > > plumbers do not. As Mike > > > points out, they can have ambulances that can > run > > > with lights and sirens and > > > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > > > responsible for their > > > employees, and they can purchase insurance to > cover > > > their losses from negligent acts. > > > They can purchase health insurance for their > > > employees. They are a > > > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > > > do not qualify for governmental > > > immunities. > > > > > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not > the > > > contracted exclusive > > > provider for a city or county should have any > > > emergency rights whatsoever. > > > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > > > services at some time, and now is the > > > best time to do it. > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > > > County, and 200 in > > > County, things are seriously out of control. > > > > > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > > > exclusive right to provide > > > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there > should > > > be some provision to afford > > > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > > > entity, but it should be > > > limited, if the provider is a for profit > company. > > > > > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > > > companies, but they ought not > > > to enjoy special status given to governmental > > > entities. > > > > > > Gene G. > > > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > > > paramedicop@paramedic writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get > into > > > this line of PUBLIC > > > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a > SERVANT to > > > whom ever calls, > > > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > > > difference the provider > > > > > they chose to work for. > > > > > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > > > companies exist to make > > > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they > exist > > > not for the > > > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > > > founders or stockholders. > > > > > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the > best > > > care possible > > > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve > to > > > be free from > > > > > potential harm or at least know that if they > are > > > violated the > > > > > violator will be punished. > > > > > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor > assault, > > > just like any other > > > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > > > involves serious bodily > > > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just > like > > > any other " regular " > > > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > > > limiting protection we > > > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad > guys > === message truncated === ************************** Save an athlete...adopt a rescued Greyhound www.greyhoundadoptiontx.org GO STARS!!!!!! ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 BTW...someone posted this and I had to quote it in case anyone missed it. " In other words, if you want the status of a public servant, start acting in the public good, not merely to line your pockets. " First of all, this surely means that all you glorious servants work for free, right? Second, that is one of the crappiest, meanest, most polarizing statements I have ever read on this list. Connie --- wegandy1938@... wrote: > Sal, your arguments are not persuasive. > > If a municipality undertakes to do all the > transfers, it will have to commit > the resources to do it. To argue " what if " makes > no sense. > > If a private service can make money on transfers, > then a municipal or county > service can do it also. > > It's not true that a municipality can never take in > more money than it > expends for services. > > It's entirely proper for a municipal service to make > money, so long as it > goes into the general fund. That's why cities have > fees for certain services. > They may make money on some, lose money on others, > but it all goes into the > municipal coffers. > > Municipalities have broad powers. They certainly > have the power to limit > private services' access to medical transport, as > has been upheld in the courts > in Texas, and many of them do it. > > If Anytown, Texas, were to take over all EMS calls, > including all transfers, > it would end up hiring the same folks that the > privates had hired. So it has > nothing to do with the value or talents of the folks > who work for either > public or private EMS services. It's all about > where the money goes. > > Gene > In a message dated 1/29/07 9:45:37 PM, > scapuchino@... writes: > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > County, > > and > > 200 in County, things are seriously out of > > control. > > > > Question is if this were to happen, are the public > 911 > > providers ready to take the hundreds of patients > who > > need an ambulance to go to dialysis and doctor's > > appointments to their respective appointments? I > > think not because then they will not be available > to > > cover their 911 calls. And if they do, now they > are > > going to cross that line you talk about between > profit > > and nonprofit. Now they are going to make a profit > > which should disqualify them from any protection > > afforded an employee who works for an entity who > is > > not out to make a profit. I know of one city that > has > > one ambulance and yet they are out doing dialysis > > transfers. If they happen to be on a transfer when > a > > 911 call comes in then they ask for mutual aid > froma > > nother city or private provider. Is this fair? > This > > service is actually out to make a profit because > it is > > a small city. > > Salvador Capuchino Jr > > EMT-Paramedic > > --- wegandy1938@wegandy wrote: > > > > > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no > rational > > > reason to mandate > > > enhanced penalties for those who assault private > EMS > > > providers, any more than there > > > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > > > plumbers. > > > > > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > > > providers and private ones. > > > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it > usually > > > must meet budgetary > > > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > > > enterprise, and as such, is a business > > > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > > > status. Private EMS > > > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > > > (Well, they may, but their badges are > > > bogus.). > > > > > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > > > plumbers do not. As Mike > > > points out, they can have ambulances that can > run > > > with lights and sirens and > > > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > > > responsible for their > > > employees, and they can purchase insurance to > cover > > > their losses from negligent acts. > > > They can purchase health insurance for their > > > employees. They are a > > > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > > > do not qualify for governmental > > > immunities. > > > > > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not > the > > > contracted exclusive > > > provider for a city or county should have any > > > emergency rights whatsoever. > > > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > > > services at some time, and now is the > > > best time to do it. > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > > > County, and 200 in > > > County, things are seriously out of control. > > > > > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > > > exclusive right to provide > > > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there > should > > > be some provision to afford > > > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > > > entity, but it should be > > > limited, if the provider is a for profit > company. > > > > > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > > > companies, but they ought not > > > to enjoy special status given to governmental > > > entities. > > > > > > Gene G. > > > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > > > paramedicop@paramedic writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get > into > > > this line of PUBLIC > > > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a > SERVANT to > > > whom ever calls, > > > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > > > difference the provider > > > > > they chose to work for. > > > > > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > > > companies exist to make > > > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they > exist > > > not for the > > > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > > > founders or stockholders. > > > > > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the > best > > > care possible > > > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve > to > > > be free from > > > > > potential harm or at least know that if they > are > > > violated the > > > > > violator will be punished. > > > > > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor > assault, > > > just like any other > > > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > > > involves serious bodily > > > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just > like > > > any other " regular " > > > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > > > limiting protection we > > > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad > guys > === message truncated === ************************** Save an athlete...adopt a rescued Greyhound www.greyhoundadoptiontx.org GO STARS!!!!!! ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 >>To this day, I have never been able to wrap my mind around the fact that if she had struck the firefighter standing next to me, it would have been a felony...but my jaw and knee only warranted a misdemeanor (turns out, not even that. Damn lazy lawyers...)<< I haven't seen the wording of this bill, but it seems like a logical compromise that if private EMS personnel are assaulted while on a 911 call - i.e. performing a *public* service - they should be afforded the same protection as their public service brethren. Now, while performing a non-emergent transfer - i.e. a *for profit* service - I say not so much. Seems to me there is room for compromise here, and fixable with just a small change in wording. -- Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc. MEDIC Training Solutions http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 On the flip side, work for a public provider and tick off the city councilman's brother-in-law's best friends cousin and you will find out that the old saying about civil service protecting incompetent employees is a myth in some places. Or really anyone who complains to a politician. AJL BTW - there are other services east of the Sabine that also have decent pay scales. Go to: http://brgov.com/dept/hr/jobdesc.asp?GetTitle=EMT+%2D+PARAMEDIC Grayson wrote: I'm late entering this thread, but I will say something in defense of EMS in the private sector. Customer service becomes a MUCH bigger concern if your livelihood is directly affected by the people you serve. Piss them off, and you lose profits. If you work for a public entity, it isn't so much a concern because the person that called 911 is your customer only in the abstract sense. Of course, YMMV... -- Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc. MEDIC Training Solutions http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/ <http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Alan Lambert wrote: >>BTW - there are other services east of the Sabine that also have decent pay scales.<< You are absolutely right. EBREMS just won't hire me part time. Drop a word in Tommy's ear, would you? <grin> -- Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc. MEDIC Training Solutions http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 RIGHT ON JULIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we want unity, them we must realize that we are all equal. I know that there are some on this list who are going to curse me when I say: whether you work for public or private, we are all doing the same job. It does not matter if you are being paid by a government agency, private company or if you volunteer. It does not matter if you are summoned by calling a 3 digit number or a 7 digit number. It does not matter if you are a ECA, EMT-B, EMT-I or EMT-P. Everyone in EMS provides care to the sick and injured. PERIOD!!!!!!!! That is the common denominator here. There are some who believe that we are only here to serve in a emergency capacity (Emergency defined by Webster's Dictionary as: a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence demanding immediate attention). That definition can be applied to most of the calls that are answered everyday. Some calls occur to prevent an emergency situation from developing and prevention is a part of EMS. We, as EMS professionals, will never be able to unify due to our own arrogance. We are our own worst enemy. Flame away folks, but first read this post and take a good look in the mirror. " JULIE S. " wrote: I am infuriated to see supposedly intelligent, informed, and educated EMS professionals referring to " private " services as having " dubious management, ownership and practices " , and references to fraud! That is as lame as saying all public sector EMS services are great (which we all know is WRONG). You cannot group all of anything and apply a label and expect it to be true to all involved. there are good and bad apples in every sector. The private service I ran for a almost a decade was started because the facilities and much of the private sector would not use the city 911 service because they were rude, crude and uncaring, a fact I witnessed personally during ride outs with them while doing advanced training. Many of the ones trashing private services are the same ones that preach " working together as EMS professionals " . Talk about hypocrits! But to read these posts, I see that you don't really count in EMS unless you work in the public sector! I can assure you that our private service gave as good, and in many, many instances better care than the public providers gave. We also did tremendous amounts of free service - not because we had to because of a duty to act, but because we recognized needs that were not being met in our community. Of course all EMS deserves to be included if the HB495 passes - there is no difference - everyone is doing the same job, regardless of who they are doing it for. Because you work for the city makes you no better, and no more noble than a medic working for a private or volunteer service! We all deserve the same treatment! --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Connie, You positioned that quote just above a copy of a post I made. I want to make it CLEAR that I did not make that statement. I don't know who did, but it wasn't me. Gene > > BTW...someone posted this and I had to quote it in > case anyone missed it. > > " In other words, if you want the status of a public > servant, start > acting in > the public good, not merely to line your pockets. " > > First of all, this surely means that all you glorious > servants work for free, right? > > Second, that is one of the crappiest, meanest, most > polarizing statements I have ever read on this list. > > Connie > > --- wegandy1938@wegandy wrote: > > > Sal, your arguments are not persuasive. > > > > If a municipality undertakes to do all the > > transfers, it will have to commit > > the resources to do it. To argue " what if " makes > > no sense. > > > > If a private service can make money on transfers, > > then a municipal or county > > service can do it also. > > > > It's not true that a municipality can never take in > > more money than it > > expends for services. > > > > It's entirely proper for a municipal service to make > > money, so long as it > > goes into the general fund. That's why cities have > > fees for certain services. > > They may make money on some, lose money on others, > > but it all goes into the > > municipal coffers. > > > > Municipalities have broad powers. They certainly > > have the power to limit > > private services' access to medical transport, as > > has been upheld in the courts > > in Texas, and many of them do it. > > > > If Anytown, Texas, were to take over all EMS calls, > > including all transfers, > > it would end up hiring the same folks that the > > privates had hired. So it has > > nothing to do with the value or talents of the folks > > who work for either > > public or private EMS services. It's all about > > where the money goes. > > > > Gene > > In a message dated 1/29/07 9:45:37 PM, > > scapuchino@... writes: > > > > > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > > County, > > > and > > > 200 in County, things are seriously out of > > > control. > > > > > > Question is if this were to happen, are the public > > 911 > > > providers ready to take the hundreds of patients > > who > > > need an ambulance to go to dialysis and doctor's > > > appointments to their respective appointments? I > > > think not because then they will not be available > > to > > > cover their 911 calls. And if they do, now they > > are > > > going to cross that line you talk about between > > profit > > > and nonprofit. Now they are going to make a profit > > > which should disqualify them from any protection > > > afforded an employee who works for an entity who > > is > > > not out to make a profit. I know of one city that > > has > > > one ambulance and yet they are out doing dialysis > > > transfers. If they happen to be on a transfer when > > a > > > 911 call comes in then they ask for mutual aid > > froma > > > nother city or private provider. Is this fair? > > This > > > service is actually out to make a profit because > > it is > > > a small city. > > > Salvador Capuchino Jr > > > EMT-Paramedic > > > --- wegandy1938@ --- wegandy19 > > > > > > > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no > > rational > > > > reason to mandate > > > > enhanced penalties for those who assault private > > EMS > > > > providers, any more than there > > > > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > > > > plumbers. > > > > > > > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > > > > providers and private ones. > > > > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it > > usually > > > > must meet budgetary > > > > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > > > > enterprise, and as such, is a business > > > > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > > > > status. Private EMS > > > > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > > > > (Well, they may, but their badges are > > > > bogus.). > > > > > > > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > > > > plumbers do not. As Mike > > > > points out, they can have ambulances that can > > run > > > > with lights and sirens and > > > > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > > > > responsible for their > > > > employees, and they can purchase insurance to > > cover > > > > their losses from negligent acts. > > > > They can purchase health insurance for their > > > > employees. They are a > > > > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > > > > do not qualify for governmental > > > > immunities. > > > > > > > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not > > the > > > > contracted exclusive > > > > provider for a city or county should have any > > > > emergency rights whatsoever. > > > > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > > > > services at some time, and now is the > > > > best time to do it. > > > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > > > > County, and 200 in > > > > County, things are seriously out of control. > > > > > > > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > > > > exclusive right to provide > > > > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there > > should > > > > be some provision to afford > > > > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > > > > entity, but it should be > > > > limited, if the provider is a for profit > > company. > > > > > > > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > > > > companies, but they ought not > > > > to enjoy special status given to governmental > > > > entities. > > > > > > > > Gene G. > > > > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > > > > paramedicop@ paramedicop@<wbr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get > > into > > > > this line of PUBLIC > > > > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a > > SERVANT to > > > > whom ever calls, > > > > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > > > > difference the provider > > > > > > they chose to work for. > > > > > > > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > > > > companies exist to make > > > > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they > > exist > > > > not for the > > > > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > > > > founders or stockholders. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the > > best > > > > care possible > > > > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve > > to > > > > be free from > > > > > > potential harm or at least know that if they > > are > > > > violated the > > > > > > violator will be punished. > > > > > > > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor > > assault, > > > > just like any other > > > > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > > > > involves serious bodily > > > > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just > > like > > > > any other " regular " > > > > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > > > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > > > > limiting protection we > > > > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad > > guys > > > === message truncated === > > ************ ******** ***** > Save an athlete...adopt a rescued Greyhound > > www.greyhoundadopti www.grey > > GO STARS!!!!!! > > ____________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ > Don't pick lemons. > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. > http://autos.http://authttp://auhttp > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You must be a new comer. : ) I have seen much worse. connie mundell wrote: BTW...someone posted this and I had to quote it in case anyone missed it. " In other words, if you want the status of a public servant, start acting in the public good, not merely to line your pockets. " First of all, this surely means that all you glorious servants work for free, right? Second, that is one of the crappiest, meanest, most polarizing statements I have ever read on this list. Connie --- wegandy1938@... wrote: > Sal, your arguments are not persuasive. > > If a municipality undertakes to do all the > transfers, it will have to commit > the resources to do it. To argue " what if " makes > no sense. > > If a private service can make money on transfers, > then a municipal or county > service can do it also. > > It's not true that a municipality can never take in > more money than it > expends for services. > > It's entirely proper for a municipal service to make > money, so long as it > goes into the general fund. That's why cities have > fees for certain services. > They may make money on some, lose money on others, > but it all goes into the > municipal coffers. > > Municipalities have broad powers. They certainly > have the power to limit > private services' access to medical transport, as > has been upheld in the courts > in Texas, and many of them do it. > > If Anytown, Texas, were to take over all EMS calls, > including all transfers, > it would end up hiring the same folks that the > privates had hired. So it has > nothing to do with the value or talents of the folks > who work for either > public or private EMS services. It's all about > where the money goes. > > Gene > In a message dated 1/29/07 9:45:37 PM, > scapuchino@... writes: > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > County, > > and > > 200 in County, things are seriously out of > > control. > > > > Question is if this were to happen, are the public > 911 > > providers ready to take the hundreds of patients > who > > need an ambulance to go to dialysis and doctor's > > appointments to their respective appointments? I > > think not because then they will not be available > to > > cover their 911 calls. And if they do, now they > are > > going to cross that line you talk about between > profit > > and nonprofit. Now they are going to make a profit > > which should disqualify them from any protection > > afforded an employee who works for an entity who > is > > not out to make a profit. I know of one city that > has > > one ambulance and yet they are out doing dialysis > > transfers. If they happen to be on a transfer when > a > > 911 call comes in then they ask for mutual aid > froma > > nother city or private provider. Is this fair? > This > > service is actually out to make a profit because > it is > > a small city. > > Salvador Capuchino Jr > > EMT-Paramedic > > --- wegandy1938@wegandy wrote: > > > > > I agree with Mike's analysis. There is no > rational > > > reason to mandate > > > enhanced penalties for those who assault private > EMS > > > providers, any more than there > > > is a reason to extend such provisions to private > > > plumbers. > > > > > > There is a vast difference between public EMS > > > providers and private ones. > > > Public EMS is not profit driven, although it > usually > > > must meet budgetary > > > limitations. Private EMS is a for-profit > > > enterprise, and as such, is a business > > > just as WalMart is. It warrants no special legal > > > status. Private EMS > > > providers do not wear the badge of the state. > > > (Well, they may, but their badges are > > > bogus.). > > > > > > Private EMS employers enjoy many privileges that > > > plumbers do not. As Mike > > > points out, they can have ambulances that can > run > > > with lights and sirens and > > > violate the traffic laws, and so forth. They are > > > responsible for their > > > employees, and they can purchase insurance to > cover > > > their losses from negligent acts. > > > They can purchase health insurance for their > > > employees. They are a > > > business, and not a governmental entity. So they > > > do not qualify for governmental > > > immunities. > > > > > > I see no reason that any private EMS service not > the > > > contracted exclusive > > > provider for a city or county should have any > > > emergency rights whatsoever. > > > Texas must address the plethora of bogus EMS > > > services at some time, and now is the > > > best time to do it. > > > > > > When there are over 100 EMS services in Dallas > > > County, and 200 in > > > County, things are seriously out of control. > > > > > > I do think that if a private contractor has the > > > exclusive right to provide > > > EMS for a city or county, or both, that there > should > > > be some provision to afford > > > that service recognition as a quasi governmental > > > entity, but it should be > > > limited, if the provider is a for profit > company. > > > > > > There are many issues involved with private EMS > > > companies, but they ought not > > > to enjoy special status given to governmental > > > entities. > > > > > > Gene G. > > > In a message dated 1/24/07 10:36:01 PM, > > > paramedicop@paramedic writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Weinzapfel > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fact, everyone who takes the time to get > into > > > this line of PUBLIC > > > > > SERVICE, Private, public or not, is a > SERVANT to > > > whom ever calls, > > > > > where ever it is, and it should make no > > > difference the provider > > > > > they chose to work for. > > > > > > > > We both know that's not true. Private EMS > > > companies exist to make > > > > money. Profit. They serve to do it, but they > exist > > > not for the > > > > public good, but to make money for the owners, > > > founders or stockholders. > > > > > > > > > Fact, they are sent expected to deliver the > best > > > care possible > > > > > without prejudice etc., and they all deserve > to > > > be free from > > > > > potential harm or at least know that if they > are > > > violated the > > > > > violator will be punished. > > > > > > > > Which he/she will. Class A Misdemeanor > assault, > > > just like any other > > > > " regular " person that gets assaulted. If it > > > involves serious bodily > > > > injury or death, it becomes a felony, just > like > > > any other " regular " > > > > person that gets assaulted. > > > > > > > > > If there is any chance anyone is looking at > > > limiting protection we > > > > > should all be worried. Remember most bad > guys > === message truncated === ************************** Save an athlete...adopt a rescued Greyhound www.greyhoundadoptiontx.org GO STARS!!!!!! __________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html Danny L. Owner/NREMT-P PETSAR INC. (Panhandle Emergency Training Services And Response) Office Fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I recently was teaching a class on ethics and asked a class of " 20 " something paramedic students what they would do if confronted with a senior partner that was doing something that was illegal, what would they do, and without exception they stated they would just turn there head because they were afraid that it would reflect on them and others that worked there would not like a snitch. I could not believe that not one of these students would stand up for what is right. I then questioned them about falsified documentation and many seem to believe that everyone does it, so it is no big thing. The question becomes how have we reached this point in out profession and society and how do we convince them to do the right thing. > > If the private EMS services would spend half as much time worrying about driving the shysters out of their midst as they are worrying about their status as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. > > Recent Activity > > 2 > New Members > > Visit Your Group > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 So....did you teach them the ethical conduct? Or did they all fail the class? Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS I recently was teaching a class on ethics and asked a class of " 20 " something paramedic students what they would do if confronted with a senior partner that was doing something that was illegal, what would they do, and without exception they stated they would just turn there head because they were afraid that it would reflect on them and others that worked there would not like a snitch. I could not believe that not one of these students would stand up for what is right. I then questioned them about falsified documentation and many seem to believe that everyone does it, so it is no big thing. The question becomes how have we reached this point in out profession and society and how do we convince them to do the right thing. > > If the private EMS services would spend half as much time worrying about driving the shysters out of their midst as they are worrying about their status as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. > > Recent Activity > > 2 > New Members > > Visit Your Group > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 : I see your point about EMS providers being just that. What I think you might be overlooking is that the majority of EMS systems nationally as I understand the statistics are fire based. The reason why is that is it somewhat of a natural fit as we are " all hazard " responders. Except for law enforcement related responses, the public calls and we are expected to neutralize the threat regardless of the emergency. What it REALLY comes down to is making the best use of resources by making the funding dollar go farther. Cross-trained crews can handle both fire and EMS, can rotate positions minimizing " burnout " , etc. There is more of a promotional ladder and there are fewer positions to fill. If you had to staff both fire positions and EMS you would need more positions or contract with a private provider. This usually requires a subsidy. This stirs up the old public vs. private vs. fire vs. third provider debate. Most often your viewpoint depends on the agency logo on your paycheck. Lest you believe my opinion is based on mine, I have worked for private with some 911, a private with a municipal 911 contract and some NET (the same provider you worked for), and a fire based EMS provider. I have seen both the good and bad in all of these systems. Lt. Steve Lemming, AAS, LP EMS Administration Officer C-Shift Azle, Texas Fire Department This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual (s) to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The City of Azle or its policies. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please phone Steve Lemming (817)444-7108. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer. For more information on The City of Azle, visit our web site at: <http://azle.govoffice.com/> Re: HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS Wes, I agree that we can and should regulate ourselves. It can and does work like you say. But other professions do not discriminate against each other because of where their peers work (hence the debate over this particular thread). I stated that in an earlier post. One of the conflicts between ourselves that I have noticed over the years is not necessarily private vs public EMS but rather fire based versus non-fire based EMS. Not to open up another argument (for that is not my intention) but it seems to me (my opinion only) that we as EMS professionals would go further and unite stronger if the fire part were taken out of the picture and EMS became essential third city services. EMS providers under the law are EMS providers. As far a regulations go, we are all one big sometimes happy dysfunctional family. In the words of the infamous Rodney King-- " Can't we all just get along? " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Did not fail them all, hoped the discussion about how they said earlier class that they wanted to help others was the main reason to become a paramedic, yet all they seemed to be worried about was self and how to save their selves. Many of them seemed to a least starting thinking about somethings in a differnt light. Time will be the true test as the grow and mature as paramedics. > > > > If the private EMS services would spend half as much time worrying > about driving the shysters out of their midst as they are worrying > about their status as public servants, EMS would improve dramatically. > > > > Recent Activity > > > > 2 > > New Members > > > > Visit Your Group > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.