Rapture rescue will airlift you to safety. If you can afford it

[Temporal Renegade]

If there's a buck to be made, someone'll find a way to do it (note the religious 'connections'):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2204504,00.html

I've moved this to the Business forum as I think it will get more attention here.

[Pyrts]

That's scary, but not entirely unpredictable. I wonder what happens to humanity when humanitarian aid depends on whether you paid someone to assist. The "paid firemen" who fought the fires around one person's house while letting the neighbor's house go up in flames is a sad example.

One of the comments there was rather interesting, I thought:
I suppose the next thing will be the kind of fire service Crassus set up in pre-Imperial Rome. He would turn up outside burning buildings and offer to buy them from the owners as the fire raged. Only when the building had passed into his possession would he send in his own private fire brigade to extinguish the flames. We'd all better watch out in this free market of emergency services.

One can see the flip side as well: "nice little house ya got there. Pity if something happened to it..."

[quixotecoyote]

Socialism is bad, therefore socialized fire departments are bad. After we privatize them, they will provide much better service. Just look at the article, the private companies were able to put out fires and save homes while the public socialized response was completely ineffective.

[Safe-Keeper]

That's scary, but not entirely unpredictable. I wonder what happens to humanity when humanitarian aid depends on whether you paid someone to assist.'When'? I don't predict this happening any time soon, myself.

Socialism is bad, therefore socialized fire departments are bad.And black-and-white thinking is... what?

After we privatize them, they will provide much better service.If by 'better', you mean 'taking out only some fires and leaving the rest to burn', then yes, they're better in that respect. Myself, however, firmly believe that it should be a fundamental human right to have people help you when you are in distress - regardlessly of whether or not you have enough money to pay them.

Just look at the article, the private companies were able to put out fires and save homes while the public socialized response was completely ineffective.Because they were privatized?

[quixotecoyote]

If by 'better', you mean 'taking out only some fires and leaving the rest to burn', then yes, they're better in that respect. Myself, however, firmly believe that it should be a fundamental human right to have people help you when you are in distress - regardlessly of whether or not you have enough money to pay them.

Human rights are arbitrary abstractions. The people whose houses burned down were perfectly free to purchase the same insurances that those with private services did. That they chose not to do so and put their time and money towards other pursuits is not something the people who did choose to spend on prevention should have to subsidize.


Because they were privatized?

Obviously. If the socialized fire departments were subject to competition they would have to offer competitive services.

[Wolfman]

Well, I'm gonna' come in with the politically-incorrect side, and say that I don't really see why this is a problem.

Let us assume that it is 'wrong' to offer these special rescue services to the elite of our society. What then are the options:

1) Everyone should receive the same treatment. If there is a disaster, every person in the disaster zone should be whisked away by helicopter, and then provided luxurious accommodations in a 5-star resort. Of course, in the article in question, the people receiving this kind of service have paid for it. They aren't getting a free 5-star hotel, or a gratis helicopter ride. The costs for those things are quite hefty, and are paid for by the people who are receiving it. If we tried to offer the same thing to everyone, it would be impossible...who would cover the cost for something like this?

2) It is wrong for you to seek extra protection for you, your family, or your property, even if you can afford it. Those people who live in the trailer park down the road can only afford partial fire insurance, so you also should only be allowed to have partial fire insurance.

Both of these options are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I'm sure that we'll get some people coming in here with the "share the wealth" equally ideal, but I have yet to see any system in which that model has actually worked.

Condemn people because they have enough money to buy better protection than you can? Its sour grapes -- if you could afford better protection, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say, "Oh, but there are hundreds of other people who can't afford this kind of protection, so I won't protect myself either" -- especially when it is the lives of you and your family that are involved.

Or condemn companies for offering a product/service for which there is a clear demand? Yeah, we'd better stop that trend pretty quickly!

[geni]

Seems to fall into much the same category as private healthcare in the UK. If you can afford it and want to buy it why not?

[SirPhilip]

I've moved this to the Business forum as I think it will get more attention here. Move it to the proper thread so a few people after reading it, can argue my misanthropy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96608&page=3) wasn't justified.

[Just thinking]

Well, I'm gonna' come in with the politically-incorrect side, and say that I don't really see why this is a problem. ...

... Or condemn companies for offering a product/service for which there is a clear demand? Yeah, we'd better stop that trend pretty quickly!

I agree ... the fact that homes were saved with this "expensive" technology proves that it not only exists, but it works. What communities should be doing is petitioning their local governments to obtain this technology for their fire departments. Such a huge demand (read sales) would both grow the competition market and drive down costs. Oh, yes ... more homes would be saved as well.

[BPSCG]

I agree ... the fact that homes were saved with this "expensive" technology proves that it not only exists, but it works. What communities should be doing is petitioning their local governments to obtain this technology for their fire departments. Such a huge demand (read sales) would both grow the competition market and drive down costs. Oh, yes ... more homes would be saved as well.But the problem with that is that this isn't going to serve any purpose for the occasional house that catches fire; your local volunteer fire department is perfectly capable of dealing with that. This is rescue service when a disaster strikes that overwhelms the local fire departments, such as the SoCal fires or Katrina. All the resources the entire state of California were insufficient to stop the fires until the Santa Ana winds died down.

And do you think taxpayers really want to pay for giving tens of thousands of people five-star airlift services out of hurricane zones? Do you think they could come even remotely close to being able to afford it?

[Kopji]

I generally don't really see a problem with people paying for extra services. A concern is when they compete for limited resources that taxpayers have paid to develop.

An example, maybe more metaphor than anything else, would be if the public firefighters and private ones both show up and try to connect to the same fire hydrant. Who gets the water, the rich house or the poor house next door?

Completely privatizing something like 'disaster services' seems similar in scope and difficulty to what we are going through with electrical power distribution. Our motto would be something like 'we are not confused because we are not well informed'. :)

I don't really see what's wrong with some services operating being run more like a neighborhood co-op, but on a larger scale. The advantage of our current systems is apparent when we see how resources are allocated between states during a crisis. Arizona firefighters have a primary local commitment, but can be re-tasked to help other states in a crisis.

[quixotecoyote]

And do you think taxpayers really want to pay for giving tens of thousands of people five-star airlift services out of hurricane zones? Do you think they could come even remotely close to being able to afford it?

You're mixing up your examples. Taxpayers wouldn't pay for that, but I could see them approving technology to save their houses from wildfires.

[Just thinking]

But the problem with that is that this isn't going to serve any purpose for the occasional house that catches fire; your local volunteer fire department is perfectly capable of dealing with that.

Of course; this is for homes clustered among thick wilderness where fires can run down entire blocks of homes at a time. I'm sure these folks would be most interested in this type of defense --- and willing to pay for it as a community.

This is rescue service when a disaster strikes that overwhelms the local fire departments, such as the SoCal fires or Katrina. All the resources the entire state of California were insufficient to stop the fires until the Santa Ana winds died down.

I'm referring only to the method(s) used to save homes from fires -- the spraying of whatever chemicals(?) were used. True, as winds died down conventional methods began to be more effective --- but that's wishful thinking at the time the disaster is at your doorstep.

And do you think taxpayers really want to pay for giving tens of thousands of people five-star airlift services out of hurricane zones? Do you think they could come even remotely close to being able to afford it?

As I said, my comments were only to those trying to save people from wildfires in thick wooded areas; I haven't thought of alternate means for the hurricane/flood disasters.

BTW ... nice to see you again, BP. Hope all is well.

[BPSCG]

Of course; this is for homes clustered among thick wilderness where fires can run down entire blocks of homes at a time. I'm sure these folks would be most interested in this type of defense --- and willing to pay for it as a community.Sure - but would the collected taxpayers of the entire town be willing to pay for fire protection that would only benefit a particular neighborhood? Would you?

How about this deal? I'll agree to kick in for your high-tech fire protection even though my neighborhood isn't near a wildfire zone, if I can get exempt from paying school taxes, not having any kids.

I'm referring only to the method(s) used to save homes from fires -- the spraying of whatever chemicals(?) were used. True, as winds died down conventional methods began to be more effective --- but that's wishful thinking at the time the disaster is at your doorstep.True. Just one of the costs of buying and owning a home in that kind of location, just as owning oceanfront property in North Carolina's Outer Banks or below-sea-level property in NOLA or property on a river flood plain are costs of home ownership that the owner should bear - not the taxpayer.

BTW ... nice to see you again, BP. Hope all is well.Thanks - I missed you guys... :blush:

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, I'm gonna' come in with the politically-incorrect side, and say that I don't really see why this is a problem.

Let us assume that it is 'wrong' to offer these special rescue services to the elite of our society. What then are the options:

1) Everyone should receive the same treatment. If there is a disaster, every person in the disaster zone should be whisked away by helicopter, and then provided luxurious accommodations in a 5-star resort. Of course, in the article in question, the people receiving this kind of service have paid for it. They aren't getting a free 5-star hotel, or a gratis helicopter ride. The costs for those things are quite hefty, and are paid for by the people who are receiving it. If we tried to offer the same thing to everyone, it would be impossible...who would cover the cost for something like this?

2) It is wrong for you to seek extra protection for you, your family, or your property, even if you can afford it. Those people who live in the trailer park down the road can only afford partial fire insurance, so you also should only be allowed to have partial fire insurance.

Both of these options are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I'm sure that we'll get some people coming in here with the "share the wealth" equally ideal, but I have yet to see any system in which that model has actually worked.

Condemn people because they have enough money to buy better protection than you can? Its sour grapes -- if you could afford better protection, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say, "Oh, but there are hundreds of other people who can't afford this kind of protection, so I won't protect myself either" -- especially when it is the lives of you and your family that are involved.

Or condemn companies for offering a product/service for which there is a clear demand? Yeah, we'd better stop that trend pretty quickly!


Fire safety is a public good and suffers from the [I]tragedy of the commons.[/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)I] and free riders. When your neighbor's unprotected, uninsured house bursts into flame, it is in yor best ineterest to have that blaze put out, lest your own home catch on fire. We can't allow fires to skip and dance their way across unprotected properties, because that poses a serious danger to everyone.

Everyone is best served by the same level of protection.

[Wolfman]

Fire safety is a public good and suffers from the [i]tragedy of the commons.[/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)I] and free riders. When your neighbor's unprotected, uninsured house bursts into flame, it is in yor best ineterest to have that blaze put out, lest your own home catch on fire. We can't allow fires to skip and dance their way across unprotected properties, because that poses a serious danger to everyone.

Everyone is best served by the same level of protection.
Wow.

Quite frankly, I'm not talking about "public safety" here. As a "public" citizen, certainly I push my local gov't to provide as much (and as good) protection as they can. But I'm also fully aware that, particularly in a time of crisis, that will be far from adequate.

My first concern, and my first responsibility, is to me, and my family. Selfish? Damn straight. And hey...if you have the money to protect your family, and don't want to spend it out of some sense of principle, that's your business.

But if I've got the money, I'm going to spend whatever I feel is necessary to provide the standard of protection that I want for my family.

It is not possible, or feasible, for me to fireproof all the houses in my city. It is not possible to guarantee that there is no earthquake, or tornado, or hurricane, or other such event that ravages the area in which I live.

I agree with one of the comments above -- where such protection measures may deprive others of assistance (such as commandeering public rescue vehicles that should be saving others; or monopolizing water supplies to put out a fire that should be used to save other houses; etc.), then I absolutely agree it is wrong. Having extra money should not entitle you to deprive others of protection.

But where my expenditure of funds represents the purchase of extra services and protective measures (private vehicles to evacuate me and my family; fire-retardant materials on my home; etc.), I see no moral or ethical problem whatsoever.

Now, you may have a different position. You may feel, for example, that rather than spending your own money to protect your own family, you would rather spend your money to protect everyone else in the area. And hey...that's a noble thing, no doubt. Let's say you go ahead and pay for everyone to get the same fire-retardant materials on their homes. Great! I salute you.

But then...ooops...the fires still sweep through your area. Or an earthquake hits. Or a hurricane. You and your family are in imminent danger. As is the rest of your community. Are you seriously going to tell your wife and kids that, "Hey, I have the money to protect us, but I won't spend it, because I can't do the same thing for everyone else?"

Are you going to refuse to buy medical insurance because there are other people who can't afford it? Because you know, the moment you buy medical insurance, you are taking advantage of your "greater wealth" to get a benefit that many other people can't afford.

Are people who buy such expensive and extravagant protection or insurance programs selfish? Sure, they are. They're not acting to protect others. They're acting to protect themselves, and their families.

I don't have the money to afford something like that; so its relatively easy to condemn. But on a smaller scale, I'm the same. For example, living in China presents some concerns if I were to face a serious medical emergency. And since I have a decent income, I pay more money for premium insurance that not only will cover hospital expenses, but that will also pay for emergency air evacuation (by helicopter) from any where in China, and that will pay for emergency air transport to any country in the world if I am in need of medical attention that is not available in China. Almost no Chinese would have insurance that comes even close to this; and relatively few foreigners working in China have that kind of insurance, either.

But I won't waste even a second feeling guilty for getting myself the best protection that I can, given my current situation and economic status. And I suspect that there are very few people who would not do the same.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow.

Quite frankly, I'm not talking about "public safety" here. As a "public" citizen, certainly I push my local gov't to provide as much (and as good) protection as they can. But I'm also fully aware that, particularly in a time of crisis, that will be far from adequate.

My first concern, and my first responsibility, is to me, and my family. Selfish? Damn straight. And hey...if you have the money to protect your family, and don't want to spend it out of some sense of principle, that's your business.

Sadly, you are talking about public safety. Fire fighting is a common good. Your selfish actions can harm everyone else's safety, disproportionate to the benefit you gain.

It is not possible, or feasible, for me to fireproof all the houses in my city. It is not possible to guarantee that there is no earthquake, or tornado, or hurricane, or other such event that ravages the area in which I live.

How fortunate that no one is proposing that you take the expenses of protecting your neighbors entirely onto yourself. What I am proposing is that resources be pooled to protect everyone to no one's detriment.

But where my expenditure of funds represents the purchase of extra services and protective measures (private vehicles to evacuate me and my family; fire-retardant materials on my home; etc.), I see no moral or ethical problem whatsoever.

Now, you may have a different position. You may feel, for example, that rather than spending your own money to protect your own family, you would rather spend your money to protect everyone else in the area. And hey...that's a noble thing, no doubt. Let's say you go ahead and pay for everyone to get the same fire-retardant materials on their homes. Great! I salute you.

That it not at all what I believe. What I believe is there are marginal returns and externalities on spending money protecting yourself, marginal returns and externalities on protecting the group, and that there is an economic point of maximum return on investment. Neither the ideology of "Looking out for #1" nor a purely socialist model will maximize the safety of one's self and one's community.

I don't think ideology should dictate where to spend the money.

[Wolfman]

You're great on the theoretical stuff. Sadly, a little lacking in regards to reality.

A simple question.

Do you buy health insurance? Knowing that there are hundreds of thousands of other people in the US (and millions around the world) who cannot afford it? Because the moment you pay for that, you are buying something that others don't have because they cannot afford it.
I don't think ideology should dictate where to spend the money.Now there's a post for the Irony Awards (if we only had them)! Actually, this is exactly what you are doing -- you are using your personal ideology to dictate how people can or cannot spend the money. If it doesn't fit with your ideology, then its wrong.

And, of course, while being good at criticizing others, I don't see you offering up anything better. So, here's question #2 for you:

Assume I'm a relatively rich individual, with a wife, children, etc. I want to protect them. I live in an area which could potentially be subject to a variety of disasters (you can take your pick) -- earthquakes, hurricanes, forest fires, tornadoes, etc. My first desire is to protect my family.

Now, the obvious choice to me is to buy the best insurance I possibly can. This includes private emergency vehicles to rescue me and my family; it includes flights to the best hospitals in case of any medical emergency; it includes extra security on my home (from burglar alarms to fire-retardant coating to emergency signals). No matter what disaster hits, while it can't guarantee safety, it significantly improves the odds of myself, and my family, surviving.

Here's the challenge for you -- present to me a realistic alternative that provides the same level of protection to myself and my family. Because while you may be someone who is willing to sacrifice his own family's safety to vaguely defined principles, I'm not.

[Just thinking]

Sure - but would the collected taxpayers of the entire town be willing to pay for fire protection that would only benefit a particular neighborhood?

That depends. As the number of homes (home owners) that would want this extra protection increases, the per-unit price would almost certainly drop; both due to volume sales and/or competition from other suppliers. The costs would be shared among those that feel the need for such technology --- these costs would not be incurred on those say, living at the shore. They would have other problems to deal with, and should not burden their costs on those living well inland.

Would you?

Again, that depends. Am I one of the residents living in thick wooded developments prone to fire damage from wildfire? If so, then I'd probably go in with them. But, if like I said above, I live far from such disaster prone areas, then no --- nor should I have to.

How about this deal? I'll agree to kick in for your high-tech fire protection even though my neighborhood isn't near a wildfire zone, if I can get exempt from paying school taxes, not having any kids.

True. Just one of the costs of buying and owning a home in that kind of location, just as owning oceanfront property in North Carolina's Outer Banks or below-sea-level property in NOLA or property on a river flood plain are costs of home ownership that the owner should bear - not the taxpayer.

My feeling is that each should fend for their own, meaning where I live should both influence my protection decisions as well as incur my local expenses. But that's not to say that I (or my community) shouldn't push for the best overall protection that's out there (within reason) and insist on the most efficient and cost effective ways to obtain it. I just happen to think it can be done better using the private sector as the means to deliver on such things.

[ImaginalDisc]

You're great on the theoretical stuff. Sadly, a little lacking in regards to reality.

I think you're ignoring externalities.

I object to spending this much on a rescue because of an externality of cost. If the private rescuers get into trouble, then public rescuers are going to have to step in and rescue them, and their clients. Since large sums of money can convince the private rescuers to take risks, I think the public rescuers and fire fighters are in effect subsidizing the costs of the private service, since public firefighters and rescuers won't refuse you service.

A simple question.

Do you buy health insurance? Knowing that there are hundreds of thousands of other people in the US (and millions around the world) who cannot afford it? Because the moment you pay for that, you are buying something that others don't have because they cannot afford it.

You are convieniently ignoring the fact that whereas there is a public fire fighting service in place, there is no public health service in place. Purchasing health insurance is the only choice I can make to protect my own health, in the absence of a major political change.

Now there's a post for the Irony Awards (if we only had them)! Actually, this is exactly what you are doing -- you are using your personal ideology to dictate how people can or cannot spend the money. If it doesn't fit with your ideology, then its wrong.

I said should and shouldn't, not can and can't. Don't put words in my mouth.

And, of course, while being good at criticizing others, I don't see you offering up anything better. So, here's question #2 for you:

Assume I'm a relatively rich individual, with a wife, children, etc. I want to protect them. I live in an area which could potentially be subject to a variety of disasters (you can take your pick) -- earthquakes, hurricanes, forest fires, tornadoes, etc. My first desire is to protect my family.

Now, the obvious choice to me is to buy the best insurance I possibly can. This includes private emergency vehicles to rescue me and my family; it includes flights to the best hospitals in case of any medical emergency; it includes extra security on my home (from burglar alarms to fire-retardant coating to emergency signals). No matter what disaster hits, while it can't guarantee safety, it significantly improves the odds of myself, and my family, surviving.

Here's the challenge for you -- present to me a realistic alternative that provides the same level of protection to myself and my family. Because while you may be someone who is willing to sacrifice his own family's safety to vaguely defined principles, I'm not.

You are presently making the opimum short term, small scale choice. That's part of the implication of game theory, what is it best for at one scale may not be best for you on another. The optimum scenario is one where a public emergency service at one cost is supplemented by whatever you want to spend in addition, provided your private expenditures don't hurt the public system. For example, bribing firefighters to extinguish blazes that threaten your home before fighting other fires helps you and hurts others, and presupposes an existing public firefighting service. Clearing trees and shrubs off of your property helps you, and doesn't hurt others. Furthermore, a system in which people are allowed to harm others indirectly for their own benefit has a net negative effect.

I think this specific scheme puts too many people who don't buy the service at risk.

ETA:

I just realized that your "simple question" is a false choice. Health Insurance is a group effort for a group benefit. The choice between being insured and uninsured is not a choice between public good and private good.

[dudalb]

As long as it does not subtract from the Public Fire Services, I have no more problem with people buying this service then I do with a businessman or homeowner buying private security.
I don't even see what the debate is about here.

[BPSCG]

As long as it does not subtract from the Public Fire Services, I have no more problem with people buying this service then I do with a businessman or homeowner buying private security.
I don't even see what the debate is about here.Me too, neither.

But some people just like to argue.

ID, I own a house. The police protect it, for which I pay taxes.

I want better protection than that. That's why I pay Brinks Security $25 every month to install and monitor an alarm system. That's why I own a revolver.

That's not like health insurance, ID - it's not "a group effort for a group benefit."

Is there something wrong with doing that? Should I be required to also buy a revolver and alarm monitoriing services for any of my neighbors who can't afford them?

[ponderingturtle]

Socialism is bad, therefore socialized fire departments are bad. After we privatize them, they will provide much better service. Just look at the article, the private companies were able to put out fires and save homes while the public socialized response was completely ineffective.

It is the libertarian answer to any disaster.

[ponderingturtle]

You're great on the theoretical stuff. Sadly, a little lacking in regards to reality.

A simple question.

Do you buy health insurance? Knowing that there are hundreds of thousands of other people in the US (and millions around the world) who cannot afford it? Because the moment you pay for that, you are buying something that others don't have because they cannot afford it.

Which is why it costs so much. That is why we need to get rid of those laws requiring medical professionals to help people in emergencies, just like these people are getting around any need for them to help others in emergencies.

[ponderingturtle]

For those in favor of this what would they think of this situation.

A private ambulance company offering a guaranteed transport to someone in a large emergency such as an MCI(mass casualties incident). They will transport you immediately for a certain fee.

Is this acceptable?

Legally this is right out, because you are not legally allowed to consider ability to pay or any other economic consideration when triaging patients. But why shouldn't this be legal, it is fundamentally the same thing. You are just giving preferential treatment to those who deserve it(based on their choice to spend their money in this fashion).

Emergency rooms could do the same thing.

[BPSCG]

For those in favor of this what would they think of this situation.

A private ambulance company offering a guaranteed transport to someone in a large emergency such as an MCI(mass casualties incident). They will transport you immediately for a certain fee.

Is this acceptable?

Legally this is right out, because you are not legally allowed to consider ability to pay or any other economic consideration when triaging patients. But why shouldn't this be legal, it is fundamentally the same thing. You are just giving preferential treatment to those who deserve it(based on their choice to spend their money in this fashion).

Emergency rooms could do the same thing.
I don't understand what is wrong with a private enterprise offering services above and beyond those provided by the government, to people willing to pay for those services. Is there anything wrong with, say, a business hiring security guards? They're paying for services beyond what the police provide.

As far as your ambulance situation goes, I suspect that ambulance services have to get licenses to be allowed to operate, and that a condition of getting a license is agreeing to transport anyone and everyone. It sounds like you're asking us to consider whether ambulance services should be required to do that. Fair question; my inclination is to say, "yes," because ambulances routinely deal with life-and-death situations.

But say I have an ATV that can get through fire, flood, and four-foot snowdrifts, and my neighbor only has a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Is it wrong for him and me to set up an arrangement where in case of disaster, and in exchange for an agreed-upon fee, I will transport him to safety, leaving my other neighbors behind?

Some services that the government provides, and which taxpayers pay for, are so vital that they should be available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay - schools, ambulances, roads, military, police protection, fire departments. But why is it wrong for someone to say, "I can afford better, and I am willing to pay for better"? And why is it wrong for someone else to say, "I will therefore provide you with better"?

Question: Some communities can provide better schools than others. Is it wrong for them to do so? This is an issue in New Hampshire, if I'm not mistaken.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't understand what is wrong with a private enterprise offering services above and beyond those provided by the government, to people willing to pay for those services. Is there anything wrong with, say, a business hiring security guards? They're paying for services beyond what the police provide.

Because there is a difference between emergency situations and general situations. The security guards are not really trained and equipped for a major emergency, say the building is burning down, or a train crashes into it.

As far as your ambulance situation goes, I suspect that ambulance services have to get licenses to be allowed to operate, and that a condition of getting a license is agreeing to transport anyone and everyone. It sounds like you're asking us to consider whether ambulance services should be required to do that. Fair question; my inclination is to say, "yes," because ambulances routinely deal with life-and-death situations.
That is a legal requirement of the EMT as well. Why shouldn't the fire services in the initial one?(the evacuation one is different because it is in preparation for an emergency and most people in evacuations are not evacuated by the government but by themselves in their own vehicles so paying for a resort evacuation is not an emergency situation, choosing to rescue person A over person B when they are stranded on the roofs of their houses in a flood would be a different thing as well)

But say I have an ATV that can get through fire, flood, and four-foot snowdrifts, and my neighbor only has a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Is it wrong for him and me to set up an arrangement where in case of disaster, and in exchange for an agreed-upon fee, I will transport him to safety, leaving my other neighbors behind?

What disaster? So you would leave him to die with out him paying you?

Some services that the government provides, and which taxpayers pay for, are so vital that they should be available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay - schools, ambulances, roads, military, police protection, fire departments. But why is it wrong for someone to say, "I can afford better, and I am willing to pay for better"? And why is it wrong for someone else to say, "I will therefore provide you with better"?

Because it does not permit optimal use of resources in an emergency. A members only emergency room is exactly what you are advocating, they throw out those who are not members to die.


Question: Some communities can provide better schools than others. Is it wrong for them to do so? This is an issue in New Hampshire, if I'm not mistaken.

Not an emergency situation.

[BPSCG]

Because there is a difference between emergency situations and general situations. The security guards are not really trained and equipped for a major emergency, say the building is burning down, or a train crashes into it.Let's go beyond rent-a-cops, then. What's wrong with your business hiring a highly-trained, cutting-edge security agency that can protect it from hazards the local police can't?

What's wrong with you hiring a highly-trained personal bodyguard able to handle all aspects of personal security? Should Hollywood people fire their bodyguards?

But say I have an ATV that can get through fire, flood, and four-foot snowdrifts, and my neighbor only has a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Is it wrong for him and me to set up an arrangement where in case of disaster, and in exchange for an agreed-upon fee, I will transport him to safety, leaving my other neighbors behind?
What disaster? Catastrophic fire. Flood. Killer blizzard. Earthquake. The Apocalypse. What have you.

[quote]So you would leave him to die with out him paying you?Why not, if that was our prearranged agreement?

Because it does not permit optimal use of resources in an emergency. A members only emergency room is exactly what you are advocating, they throw out those who are not members to die.Not so; the public hospitals are still available.

Should I be forbidden to have a monitored alarm system on my house, simply because others can not fford it? In the event of a series of break-ins in my neighborhood, my house will get faster response than houses with no alarm system, simply because the alarm company will call the police even if I'm not home. Why is that wrong?

What logic dictates that nobody may have emergency services supplied by a private individual, and paid for out of his own pocket, beyond that which is already provided by government?

[Just thinking]

... What logic dictates that nobody may have emergency services supplied by a private individual, and paid for out of his own pocket, beyond that which is already provided by government?

Socialist logic. ;)

[Just thinking]

So you would leave him to die with out him paying you?

The manner in which you pose this question seems to imply that all the fault lies with those that opted for better services and none for those that may have chosen to ignore them (but could have afforded them). Why shouldn't the cost (in this case loss of property and perhaps life) be blamed on the one(s) putting other issues ahead of personal safety? If the unfortunate owner felt that such safeguards were unnecessary (and turned out to be wrong), he should face the music of such a decision. We all make mistakes --- even big ones; and in the end, we pay for them.

[ponderingturtle]

Socialist logic. ;)

Right, the best way to determine who need treatment the most is by their credit score not their injuries.

[ponderingturtle]

The manner in which you pose this question seems to imply that all the fault lies with those that opted for better services and none for those that may have chosen to ignore them (but could have afforded them). Why shouldn't the cost (in this case loss of property and perhaps life) be blamed on the one(s) putting other issues ahead of personal safety? If the unfortunate owner felt that such safeguards were unnecessary (and turned out to be wrong), he should face the music of such a decision. We all make mistakes --- even big ones; and in the end, we pay for them.

Ah the "Don't get sick outside of what you can afford" arguement.

[Just thinking]

Right, the best way to determine who need treatment the most is by their credit score not their injuries.

That's to laugh, for sure.

Socialized care is better than none, but if you want superior care ... well, you gets what you pay for. And that's been the case all throughout history. Those that can afford better (and pay for it) get better.

Next time, please try to understand my arguments.

[Just thinking]

Ah the "Don't get sick outside of what you can afford" arguement.

Ahhh, no. It's the "Don't expect others to do all your thinking for you" argument.

Along with "Don't expect others to pay for all your poor decisions" argument.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's go beyond rent-a-cops, then. What's wrong with your business hiring a highly-trained, cutting-edge security agency that can protect it from hazards the local police can't?

What's wrong with you hiring a highly-trained personal bodyguard able to handle all aspects of personal security? Should Hollywood people fire their bodyguards?

What does that have to do with anything? I know you hate the idea of someone with less money getting treated first because they are more injured than you are, that is the real crux of your dislike of any kind of organized effective methods to deal with disasters. It should all be individual. Like in the old days when you had a contract with a fire department and you had a cast iron sign showing that they where supposted to fight the fire if your house was on fire but not others as they didn't pay for it.



Not so; the public hospitals are still available.

Not really. All hospitals in this country have the same regulations. They are not allowed to deny patients life saving treatements regardless of their ability to pay. Kind of like EMT's comit crimes if they have somone asking for help and then leave them. The crime is abandonment.


What logic dictates that nobody may have emergency services supplied by a private individual, and paid for out of his own pocket, beyond that which is already provided by government?

Good so if you can afford say better police you hire them to solve the break in against you.

[ponderingturtle]

Ahhh, no. It's the "Don't expect others to do all your thinking for you" argument.

Along with "Don't expect others to pay for all your poor decisions" argument.

Yes the poor decision of getting sick or injured in a way that will cost more to deal with than you can afford.

[ponderingturtle]

That's to laugh, for sure.

Socialized care is better than none, but if you want superior care ... well, you gets what you pay for. And that's been the case all throughout history. Those that can afford better (and pay for it) get better.

Next time, please try to understand my arguments.

So you agree that in emergency situations resources should be used first for those with the most money? That is what you are saying.

Or are you just entirely ignoreing that this is about emergencies?

[Just thinking]

Yes the poor decision of getting sick or injured in a way that will cost more to deal with than you can afford.

I guess I left out "Not everyone can live like the King" argument.

Sorry.

(None of this is getting through, is it?)

[ponderingturtle]

I guess I left out "Not everyone can live like the King" argument.

Sorry.

(None of this is getting through, is it?)

No I understand that you have major issues with medical ethics, and laws. You want doctors to be able to toss the dieing out on the street and ignore them.

[Just thinking]

So you agree that in emergency situations resources should be used first for those with the most money? That is what you are saying.

Not in the least. Can you read?

... if you want superior care ... well, you gets what you pay for. That's what I am saying. If you want something better (and can afford to pay for it), why can't you get better?

Or are you just entirely ignoring that this is about emergencies?

Nowhere near how you are ignoring what I'm saying.

[Just thinking]

No I understand that you have major issues with medical ethics, and laws. You want doctors to be able to toss the dieing out on the street and ignore them.

So many strawmen ... too few cornfields.

Show me exactly where what I have said is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Point out exactly which laws are being violated?

Where is it that I am saying doctors must abandon patients?

[ponderingturtle]

Not in the least. Can you read?

... if you want superior care ... well, you gets what you pay for. That's what I am saying. If you want something better (and can afford to pay for it), why can't you get better?



Nowhere near how you are ignoring what I'm saying.

So you like the idea that if you get in an accident those who paid the ambulance company a premium beforehand go first, then the most injured?

They should be treated in hospitals the same way.

Sure this results in higher death rates, but they should have thought about that before they didn't or couldn't afford the premiums for preferential emergency care.

It is like rescuing someone who is stuck on their roof first while someone else drowns, because they paid a premium.

This will require a major reworking of medical ethics, as you need to get rid of the idea that all people are valued.

[ponderingturtle]

So many strawmen ... too few cornfields.

Show me exactly where what I have said is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Point out exactly which laws are being violated?

You are positing emergency rooms that refuse patients for one, that is right out of the hippocratic oath and law.

[Just thinking]

So you like the idea that if you get in an accident those who paid the ambulance company a premium beforehand go first, then the most injured?

They should be treated in hospitals the same way.

No ... No ... No ... and NO.

I am saying that if you have the resources you can choose to have private services take you to the hospital of your choice --- this in no way impedes the other services that treat the public at large. And it does not impede them from receiving emergency care in the order needed. Please stop making such non-relevant arguments that have no merit on my points.

Sure this results in higher death rates, but they should have thought about that before they didn't or couldn't afford the premiums for preferential emergency care.

No everyone can afford the best of everything --- that's common sense. And that includes medical care. Why does this surprise you?

It is like rescuing someone who is stuck on their roof first while someone else drowns, because they paid a premium.

That's life, my friend. Again, you seem to be asking others to pay for someone's poor decisions and/or judgment.

This will require a major reworking of medical ethics, as you need to get rid of the idea that all people are valued.

Not at all --- that's the way it now exists.

[Just thinking]

You are positing emergency rooms that refuse patients for one, that is right out of the hippocratic oath and law.

Stop drinking while posting.

(OK, that's a joke.) I have never made that implication. Normal services will NOT be impeded to what now exists.

[ponderingturtle]

No ... No ... No ... and NO.

I am saying that if you have the resources you can choose to have private services take you to the hospital of your choice --- this in no way impedes the other services that treat the public at large. And it does not impede them from receiving emergency care in the order needed. Please stop making such non-relevant arguments that have no merit on my points.

Other services? You really do not know much about EMS then. Generaly EMS is not a public institution any more, at least in many places. It is contracted to for profit companies. These would be the same companies that you would have the contract with.

So you are talking about prefencial treatement from the same organization, not a seperate organization.

[ponderingturtle]

Stop drinking while posting.

(OK, that's a joke.) I have never made that implication. Normal services will NOT be impeded to what now exists.

Sure they will. A hospital decided to go private and not admit the public only its licience holders.

One you are positing that this would have an emergency care devision. They are refusing treatement to those who do not pay the premiums, so they throw them out. Bingo that is entirely illegal right now.

You have to change the laws removing legal obligations to treat emergency patients to make your system work.

[BPSCG]

Let's go beyond rent-a-cops, then. What's wrong with your business hiring a highly-trained, cutting-edge security agency that can protect it from hazards the local police can't?

What's wrong with you hiring a highly-trained personal bodyguard able to handle all aspects of personal security? Should Hollywood people fire their bodyguards?


What does that have to do with anything? Are you serious? Your position (correct me if I've misrepresented it) is that nobody should have access to any vital services unless everyone has access to those same services.

If you don't see what the above examples have to do with it, then I don't know how to explain it to you any better.

I know you hate the idea of someone with less money getting treated first because they are more injured than you are, Please point to where I said that, suggested it, implied it, or otherwise gave any indication whatsoever that I believed it. Otherwise retract it or I'll consider this discussion finished.

that is the real crux of your dislike of any kind of organized effective methods to deal with disasters. Please point to where I said that, suggested it, implied it, or otherwise gave any indication whatsoever that I believed it. Otherwise retract it or I'll consider this discussion finished.

All hospitals in this country have the same regulations. They are not allowed to deny patients life saving treatements regardless of their ability to pay. Kind of like EMT's comit crimes if they have somone asking for help and then leave them. The crime is abandonment.And if I decide to hire my own personal doctor and set up my own personal clinic for my own personal use (assuming I had anything remotely resembling that kind of wealth), in what way does that harm anyone else? You seem to think I'm suggesting all hospitals be privatized and given the option of refusing service at its own discretion, for any reason. I don't know where you got that idea. You seem to be imputing a lot of positions to me today that I do not hold.

Good so if you can afford say better police you hire them to solve the break in against you.If the city police don't protect my house and can't discover who broke into it and stole my TV, and can't recover my property, in what way does the fact that I might hire a private detective to do so harm anyone else?

[Just thinking]

Other services? You really do not know much about EMS then. Generaly EMS is not a public institution any more, at least in many places. It is contracted to for profit companies. These would be the same companies that you would have the contract with.

Not necessarily --- I may have private companies air-lift me to hospitals that are specialized in whatever I am suffering from. Local ground EMS units may be limited to take people to one or perhaps two local hospitals (patient's choice). But even if they're privately operated, they operate under local jurisdiction laws, and must abide by them. (My brother was an EMS driver -- so I do know a bit about this stuff.)

So you are talking about prefencial treatement from the same organization, not a seperate organization.

I hope you can now see I obviously am not.

[Just thinking]

Sure they will. A hospital decided to go private and not admit the public only its licience holders.

One you are positing that this would have an emergency care devision. They are refusing treatement to those who do not pay the premiums, so they throw them out. Bingo that is entirely illegal right now.

You have to change the laws removing legal obligations to treat emergency patients to make your system work.

As long as the public service is not affected in any way to what now exists, there is nothing wrong with private medical centres. And if local hospitals should become somehow incapacitated, then these centres will help as well, but their existence to serve those who paid for them is perfectly legal, ethical and OK by me.

[Just thinking]

... You seem to think I'm suggesting all hospitals be privatized and given the option of refusing service at its own discretion, for any reason. I don't know where you got that idea. You seem to be imputing a lot of positions to me today that I do not hold.

Sorry, you'll have to stand in line.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you serious? Your position (correct me if I've misrepresented it) is that nobody should have access to any vital services unless everyone has access to those same services.

I am considering emergency situations. Not evacuations, or systematic arrangements. You are totally ignoring any real emergency requirement.


Please point to where I said that, suggested it, implied it, or otherwise gave any indication whatsoever that I believed it. Otherwise retract it or I'll consider this discussion finished.

It is a clear result of the system you are advocating.

Please point to where I said that, suggested it, implied it, or otherwise gave any indication whatsoever that I believed it. Otherwise retract it or I'll consider this discussion finished.

That is easy. You want there to be resources that get used for only certain people. So that a resource in a wildfire that could say save 100 houses if used to limit the total damage in the best way possible instead saves 1 house while the rest burn.

And if I decide to hire my own personal doctor and set up my own personal clinic for my own personal use (assuming I had anything remotely resembling that kind of wealth), in what way does that harm anyone else? You seem to think I'm suggesting all hospitals be privatized and given the option of refusing service at its own discretion, for any reason. I don't know where you got that idea. You seem to be imputing a lot of positions to me today that I do not hold.

Most hospitals are privatized, and all of them worry about money and the drain emergency care provides. It would be a financial benefit to all of them to be able to ignore treatment of those not able to pay, or as you are setting it up, those who have not already paid.

You see the emergency element here is the important part, you can hire your own doctor and such, but you can not have a private members only emergency room.

[BPSCG]

I am considering emergency situations. Not evacuations, or systematic arrangements. You are totally ignoring any real emergency requirement.



It is a clear result of the system you are advocating.


That is easy. You want there to be resources that get used for only certain people. So that a resource in a wildfire that could say save 100 houses if used to limit the total damage in the best way possible instead saves 1 house while the rest burn.


Most hospitals are privatized, and all of them worry about money and the drain emergency care provides. It would be a financial benefit to all of them to be able to ignore treatment of those not able to pay, or as you are setting it up, those who have not already paid.

You see the emergency element here is the important part, you can hire your own doctor and such, but you can not have a private members only emergency room.

Okay, I'm done with you. Have a nice day! :)

[ponderingturtle]

Not necessarily --- I may have private companies air-lift me to hospitals that are specialized in whatever I am suffering from. Local ground EMS units may be limited to take people to one or perhaps two local hospitals (patient's choice). But even if they're privately operated, they operate under local jurisdiction laws, and must abide by them. (My brother was an EMS driver -- so I do know a bit about this stuff.)


Not much, most EMT's I know would hate being called drivers, that was something that always pissed me off with nurses when picking up patients. So it seems more likely that he was a volly driver, did some volunteer driving for the local volunteer ambulance.

Or you really did not listen to him to get the nuances and thus would not call him an EMS driver.

As for airlifting you to specialist hospitals, that is once again something that you can sue the emergency personnel there if they do not do. There is this thing call standard of care. If you are suffering from massive burns you are going to a burn center, trauma to a trauma center, stroke to a stroke center(this last one is unlikely to be flown by helicopter in my experience).

You might get taken to a hospital and then flown to a specialist center that happens too.

So once again you are arguing in favor of reducing the medical care of the average person to permit elite care of the wealthy.

[Just thinking]

Not much, most EMT's I know would hate being called drivers, that was something that always pissed me off with nurses when picking up patients. So it seems more likely that he was a volly driver, did some volunteer driving for the local volunteer ambulance.

Or you really did not listen to him to get the nuances and thus would not call him an EMS driver.

I was not in the service, he was and didn't live near me. I went by what he told me --- that he drove the ambulance. Plus, he did have paramedic training.

As for airlifting you to specialist hospitals, that is once again something that you can sue the emergency personnel there if they do not do. There is this thing call standard of care. If you are suffering from massive burns you are going to a burn center, trauma to a trauma center, stroke to a stroke center(this last one is unlikely to be flown by helicopter in my experience).

You might get taken to a hospital and then flown to a specialist center that happens too.

I am speaking of what the patient requests over and above normal social care. There may be several hospitals that can care for a certain condition, and if I'm Joe Blow I may very well be at the mercy of whichever they choose to send me. But if I have a private transport service I can instruct them as to where I specifically wish to go. For my own personal reasons --- be they good or bad.

So once again you are arguing in favor of reducing the medical care of the average person to permit elite care of the wealthy.

OK, like BP, I'm going to have to ignore this continued nonsense on what YOU think I'm saying as opposed to what I am actually saying. BYE-BYE

[ponderingturtle]

I was not in the service, he was and didn't live near me. I went by what he told me --- that he drove the ambulance. Plus, he did have paramedic training.

You are really mixing terms there. A paramedic is a very highly trained EMT who can do invasive treatments and administer medication(including morphine and valium) on their own.

How much education did he have? EMT is generally say 2-4 months, depending on how many days a week and hours a day it is. 4 months would be 2 days a week and 3 hours a day. With weekends and some rotations.

Paramedic course is 10 month to 2 years, with hundreds of hours of rotations and such. The 10 month course is basically all you do for 10 months.



I am speaking of what the patient requests over and above normal social care. There may be several hospitals that can care for a certain condition, and if I'm Joe Blow I may very well be at the mercy of whichever they choose to send me. But if I have a private transport service I can instruct them as to where I specifically wish to go. For my own personal reasons --- be they good or bad.

Then you are for having a low general standard of care, lower than we have now, and a higher premium standard of care for the affluent.

The whole point is that your examples of premium care are the standard of care now. What you might get is for say elective surgery where you have nicer rooms and such, but in general the standard of care is the standard of care.

You want to lower the standard of care for everyone, so that people can elect to have a higher standard of care if they can afford it. That is exactly what you are describing.