HB495-Proposed Bill relating to EMS

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/

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

>

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

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

>

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]

>

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]

>

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]

>

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

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/

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

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/

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/>

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/

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.

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

>

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

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

>

January 30, 2007

So....did you teach them the ethical conduct? Or did they all fail the class?