Cities and states start charging for police and fire calls

[Anti Federalist]

One more reason to never dial 911.


A Crash. A Call for Help. Then, a Bill.

By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
Published: September 3, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/automobiles/05CRASHTAX.html?_r=1

ABOUT a year ago Cary Feldman was surprised to find himself sprawled on the pavement in an intersection in Chicago Heights, Ill., having been knocked off his motor scooter by the car behind him. Five months later he got another surprise: a bill from the fire department for responding to the scene of the accident.

"I had no idea what the fire truck was there for,” said Mr. Feldman, of nearby Matteson. “It came, it looked and it left. I was not hurt badly. I had scratches and bruises. I did not go to the hospital.”

Mr. Feldman had become enmeshed in what appears to be a nascent budget-balancing trend in municipal government: police and fire departments have begun to charge accident victims as a way to offset budget cuts.

Ambulance charges have long been common and are usually paid by health insurance, but fees for other responders are relatively new. The charge is variously called a “crash tax” or “resource recovery,” depending on one’s point of view. In either case, motorists are billed for services they may have thought were covered by taxpayers.

Sometimes the victim’s insurer pays. But if it declines, motorists may face threats from a collection agency if they don’t pay.

[Danke]

Perfect. Let's go to a fee based system. They will no longer be on salary and we won't have to use taxpayer money to pay for them.

[heavenlyboy34]

About damn time. People will finally start seeing the hidden costs of these things and look for free market solutions (or beg for welfare, which historically seems more likely :sad: )

[awake]

Governments are at a loss to tax more... this is the monopolist departments taking confiscation into their own hands.

It will help to increase the push back of the muggers by the mugees.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I suppose this has a "crash the system" effect that I didn't see at first glance, maybe should not have given it "thumbs down".

Yeah, in mulling it over, charge the sheeple, charge the hell out of them.

They won't be able to whine "Well, if get rid of taxes how will we pay for essential serrrrviccccessss".

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah, I suppose this has a "crash the system" effect that I didn't see at first glance, maybe should not have given it "thumbs down".

Yeah, in mulling it over, charge the sheeple, charge the hell out of them.

They won't be able to whine "Well, if get rid of taxes how will we pay for essential serrrrviccccessss".

I'm sure their response would be something like "oh, the people just aren't taxed enough" :(

[MelissaWV]

I would take this to court. The article does not mention that the crash victim dialed 9-1-1, nor did they say anything that would lead one to believe a fire engine is necessary. You can't simply show up at someone's door and then charge them for your commute. I don't think the Government would press this one. It seems like more of a scam to be had against insurance companies than anything else.

[Andrew-Austin]

Yeah, I suppose this has a "crash the system" effect that I didn't see at first glance, maybe should not have given it "thumbs down".

Yeah, in mulling it over, charge the sheeple, charge the hell out of them.

They won't be able to whine "Well, if get rid of taxes how will we pay for essential serrrrviccccessss".

What confuses me is the fact that probably both taxes and fees are going to pay for policemen and fireman.

[jclay2]

I would take this to court. The article does not mention that the crash victim dialed 9-1-1, nor did they say anything that would lead one to believe a fire engine is necessary. You can't simply show up at someone's door and then charge them for your commute. I don't think the Government would press this one. It seems like more of a scam to be had against insurance companies than anything else.

This.

[Dreamofunity]

Might as well have competition then.

[awake]

In Canada our universal "free" health care is going the same route; a fee on top of taxes to ward off 'too big to fail'. The fee is exactly to show a cost involved to deter overuse.

[phill4paul]

Good. Either pay up voluntarily, volunteer physically or don't bitch when your house burns to the ground!

[puppetmaster]

I live on a private road...I will charge them the same amount to drive on it......
I also will deduct any charge from my property tax as double taxation.

[puppetmaster]

Might as well have competition then.

guess I have the right to charge someone then if I stop and help also....hmmm.......I may have a new job?
:D

[Elwar]

I had a private fire station in one town I lived in.

You either pay $20 a month or they charged different fees for various service calls (up to $2,000 for putting out a house fire). I felt it was reasonable. Our taxes were low.

I think a pay per call for police service would be good too. Charge the caller then give a rebate once the criminal is convicted, and charge the criminal. That would probably cut down on the amount of frivilous calls and open things up for true emergencies with actual victims.

[MelissaWV]

I had a private fire station in one town I lived in.

You either pay $20 a month or they charged different fees for various service calls (up to $2,000 for putting out a house fire). I felt it was reasonable. Our taxes were low.

I think a pay per call for police service would be good too. Charge the caller then give a rebate once the criminal is convicted, and charge the criminal. That would probably cut down on the amount of frivilous calls and open things up for true emergencies with actual victims.

In reading the article, it doesn't look like the victim is the one that called... so why should they be charged? People are calling on behalf of the "incapacitated" victim(s), and then the police/fire/ambulance arrives. This is the biggest bump in the road for this sort of system.

I do like the private emergency services system, though, and if you'll notice the charges are based on what's actually done. Imagine calling a handyman service and saying something's wrong with your sink; it seems to be dripping somewhere along the line. They send a plumber. They also send in a carpenter and a drywall expert, just in case your sink is situated in a location that the wall has been damaged by the water. They also solicit a mold abatement service, because water damage often leads to dangerous mold. Of course, you just need a small leak fixed, and there's no water damage (it's dripping into a bucket). The plumber should get to charge you for fixing the leak, but should you have to compensate all those other people because their services "might" have been needed, or is it the handyman service's fault for dispatching so many? :p

[acptulsa]

In reading the article, it doesn't look like the victim is the one that called... so why should they be charged? People are calling on behalf of the "incapacitated" victim(s), and then the police/fire/ambulance arrives. This is the biggest bump in the road for this sort of system.

I was thinking the same thing. If the injured party, victim or whatever doesn't call, there's no way it can be called a contract for services. And if they try to charge the good samaritan, it will have an interesting effect indeed.


The plumber should get to charge you for fixing the leak, but should you have to compensate all those other people because their services "might" have been needed, or is it the handyman service's fault for dispatching so many? :p

Ah, but the plumber doesn't have a monopoly. So, he or she knows there's no getting away with such abuse.

So, if this is a fee-based service, what judge could say that competition is not to be allowed? Could be quite a legal opening for us to privatize more of our society. Obviously, they aren't engaging in long-term thinking with this, or they wouldn't putting their authority at such risk of erosion in this way.

[Krugerrand]

I would take this to court. The article does not mention that the crash victim dialed 9-1-1, nor did they say anything that would lead one to believe a fire engine is necessary. You can't simply show up at someone's door and then charge them for your commute. I don't think the Government would press this one. It seems like more of a scam to be had against insurance companies than anything else.

socking it to the insurance companies.