Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode


Feb 24, 2010

almost ten years ago

I\'m with you there. Normally I\'m in the camp of \"little government as possible,\" but I don\'t think that anyone should be without the protection that emergency services provide. That being said, I know a lot of people in California that are on unemployment because they get paid more than if they start a new job. I\'ve also known people that have worked a job just long enough to get back in the welfare system. With a state that\'s willing to pay for those people, but not more emergency personnel, it\'s indicative of a state that\'s not serving the people responsibly.

I\'ve called the police from a business, and personally. The average response time is four minutes for a business, and an hour and a half for civilians. Most of the time, they just call to see if you still need assistance. I don\'t want the Feds to step in necessarily, but someone needs to bitch slap the bureaucrats who stand in the way of public safety.

Big Dave (OZ)
almost ten years ago

It certainly sounds screwed up, but if you forget the $300 call out and focus on the annual $48, and divide that by a monthly phone bill addition of $4 per month, it\'s kind of trivial. They shouldn\'t have asked, they should have just said there\'s a $4 monthly charge to cover your connection to emergency services.

I think I read somewhere that it doesn\'t apply to calls from cell phones, as it\'s too easy to pick up any cell phone and call 911 without even having a sim card in it.

almost ten years ago

Australia has an annual Ambulance fee, It\'s been a while since I\'ve lived there but I think it is around $50 per person or $90 per family per year.

Joe - you weren\'t too specific about the details on this one.
Doesnt 911 can relate to Ambulance, Police & Firebrigade?
Surely if someone was robbing your house and you called 911 police, you wouldn\'t have to pay $300 if you werent a \"911 member\"

I think paying an annual subscription for Ambulance is a good policy. This would mean more funding to the ambulance and \"in theory\" should provide a better and quicker ambulance service in the long run. IMO it would be worth the $40 odd dollars a year in case you got in deep shit somewhere and needed to be airlifted somewhere by helicopter which would end up costing you a fortune.

almost ten years ago

I disagree with your analysis regarding capitalism, Joe. I believe that it\\\'s a result of California\\\'s socialism aspect.

I also live in California, and it\\\'s my understanding that when the government can\\\'t pay for something, politicians here attempt to raise taxes instead of dealing with inefficient systems. It\\\'s also my understanding that the tax payer dollar is horrendously mismanaged. I\\\'m not saying that emergency services should be privatized, but I do believe that this is a result of the state government that is unable to pay for such necessary services.

In the place of my employment, we have a panic button to which police respond very quickly. However, if it is misused, we get charged seventy-five dollars. I think that it\\\'s pretty fair, and we tend to stay the hell away from it unless we absolutely have to use it.

As a side note, if you call 911 from a cell phone in the Central Valley of California, it\\\'s routed first to the California Highway Patrol center somewhere around Rio Vista.

almost ten years ago

In regards to the socialism of California, I have no fear of a little socialism if it means basic protections, a concept I don\'t think we\'ve yet figured out in this country. I agree the state of California is horribly mismanaged, but at no time do I accept that what is misgoverned should infringe on our ability to live. If the state can\'t pay, then the Fed should kick in to make sure 911 doesn\'t become a cost consideration. Would that trigger calls of \'government mandated emergency responder services\' I wonder?

Dave (UK)
almost ten years ago

They\'ve probably introduced this charge because its economy is in the shitter. We have something similar where you might end up paying for an ambulance although usually in the case of road-related affairs this is dealt with by insurance.

In complete agreement though, the good Samaritan should never be stiffed, whereas the crank caller/idiot should be stoned to death. That fake call may have prevented a real emergency from being attended.