BF2S Forums EMS and who pays

S3v3N wrote:

Here in montucky (montana), the rural area's charge for ambulance service, but then again 80% of the ambulance services in Montana are volunteer EMTs, our average bill is 300.00$, most of the time paid by insurance anyway. Our Yearly budget from the County government is 1,000.00$.  Try running 7 ambulances on 1000.00.  In the town I live in, we average about 10 calls per week (just EMS), but due to state law, we don't have the population for a paid EMS service or Fire/Rescue. 

The bigger cities, don't have a paid EMS service, they use private companies or the Hospital has their own fleet.  The fire department personal are city employees, or for the bigger areas, county employees.




A private company has the right to bill you for their services, but a local government run EMS service doesn't, the city government needs to unfuck their budget.

After seeing the way you write money signs (300.00$), it's obvious that ambulances aren't the only public service the government is cutting costs on...

chittydog wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Here in montucky (montana), the rural area's charge for ambulance service, but then again 80% of the ambulance services in Montana are volunteer EMTs, our average bill is 300.00$, most of the time paid by insurance anyway. Our Yearly budget from the County government is 1,000.00$.  Try running 7 ambulances on 1000.00.  In the town I live in, we average about 10 calls per week (just EMS), but due to state law, we don't have the population for a paid EMS service or Fire/Rescue. 

The bigger cities, don't have a paid EMS service, they use private companies or the Hospital has their own fleet.  The fire department personal are city employees, or for the bigger areas, county employees.




A private company has the right to bill you for their services, but a local government run EMS service doesn't, the city government needs to unfuck their budget.

After seeing the way you write money signs (300.00$), it's obvious that ambulances aren't the only public service the government is cutting costs on...

OoOoO


Actually its how we use the dollar sign at my job to signify USD.

Last edited by S3v3N (2009-04-13 20:50:44)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Don't expect insurance to cover it either.

I believe it's a federal requirement that if it truly is an emergency (potential loss of life, limb, or eyesight), then it must be a covered item under all insurance plans.

Of course, some companies can be complete tools when it comes to seeing eye-to-eye on the emergent nature of the condition.

I think I might be talking to a lawyer soon then.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I believe it's a federal requirement that if it truly is an emergency (potential loss of life, limb, or eyesight), then it must be a covered item under all insurance plans.

Of course, some companies can be complete tools when it comes to seeing eye-to-eye on the emergent nature of the condition.

I think I might be talking to a lawyer soon then.

Got charged?

My brother had to go to the ER for something actually life threatening, and his insurance wouldn't cover the EMS ride or much of the visit in general.

UK its free, so you get chavs using it as a taxi service 'Got an asthma attack, can you run me to the hospital near my mate's house'?

In Australia you need insurance, people have been left to die if they can't produce their card, my 80 yr old neighbour broke his leg - they rolled him over screaming in agony to get his wallet out of his back pocket - awesome.

So what is it that is not "fair"? The fact that the rich will have to pay for this shit and not you ( because after all they can afford it) or is it not "fair" because everyone is expected to pay, including those that can't ( won't)?

I have an idea, only rich people should be allowed to vote, after all its the rich who pay for the govt, not the poor who are net receivers of tax.
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote either, they rarely get rich and they aren't that bright either.

Actually why bother with a vote? Just let rich people buy their place in congress or the senate, no doubt they will pass laws favourable to other rich people and the nation needn't bother with the tediousness of voting, the slowness of democracy and the brake it puts on rich people getting even richer.

Better still, just let the richest man rule the country, his successors can be his sons and daughters - that would save a lot of decision making - and he can pick his advisors from a selection of the richest landowners or whoever else he chooses.
Poor people shouldn't be allowed property, or to own land, after all, whats the point?
They would have to pay taxes though.

Sound good lowing?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-04-15 05:19:30)