# FDNY to jump on the fee bandwagon.



## Flight-LP (Dec 12, 2010)

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...plan-to-charge-drivers-for-emergency-response

Thoughts?

Personally I think its crap.


----------



## bstone (Dec 12, 2010)

People pay taxes for these services, but when people aren't working (thus not paying taxes) the services suffer.

It would make sense to have car insurance companies cover this fee.


----------



## medicdan (Dec 12, 2010)

I don't quite understand the assertion that people would be paying out of pocket because the fee is less than $500..., because ostensibly if FDNY is called there is going to be some damage to the vehicle, necessitating the need for insurance to kick in, and surely that will be more than $500... no?


----------



## Flight-LP (Dec 12, 2010)

emt.dan said:


> I don't quite understand the assertion that people would be paying out of pocket because the fee is less than $500..., because ostensibly if FDNY is called there is going to be some damage to the vehicle, necessitating the need for insurance to kick in, and surely that will be more than $500... no?



Because most deductibles are for collision and liability only, not misc. fees. Many insurance companies refuse to pay these fees as they are not consistent with industry "norms".

My gripe with it is the fact that I am already paying for these services through my taxes. So if I get in a minor fender bender and am not injured, I could still be charged for the response and the use of equipment. So, should some ricky ranger volunteer drive by and see my minor accident, they may go all whacker on my arse and call for a response that isn't needed. Happens in some VFD's often. 

I find it humerous how some of the smaller departments say they have to charge because they can't cover their costs, yet they get new fire trucks every year!?!?! Sorry, but this is a really sore subject with me. I almost choked on my beer tonight watching the ABC World News hearing about some of the charges. 

$150 for cones!
$50 for a broom!

Outrageous!


----------



## Veneficus (Dec 12, 2010)

I think it is unfair, but I see why they are doing it.

It is the responsibility of government to provide emergency service. But in order to pay for it, in this day and age, America's lowest taxes in the modern world are not going to cover it. 

I think it would be more fair and I could support it if they charged a fee for all service, not just bilking car insurers. 

Why not charge a fee to fire insurance companies when people have a fire too?

How about a rescue fee when somebody finds themselves in a trench, confined space, or some water?


----------



## VinBin (Dec 16, 2010)

With the massive budget deficits being seen in all states, eventually the entire public service sector will require payments for services rendered. Taxes won't cut it, not only due to the massive abuse of the EMS system, but especially because of the amount of graft and wasteful spending on ridiculous government programs that need to be supported before the budget of EMS/Fire can increase (not to say that Fire/EMS couldn't benefit from a bit of cost cutting itself).


----------



## ParaPrincess904 (Jan 4, 2011)

Considering how much time and money is spent to pay these men and women, and the equipment, and the gas, and the training; these prices that they have here don't seem that outrageous. Plus, I believe that as more and more agencies across the country pick up this practice, it may become the industry standard and be covered by the insurance companies...


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 4, 2011)

I think they should be required to pay for the cleanup afterward, but not the rescue / medical interventions.


----------



## rescue99 (Jan 4, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> I think it is unfair, but I see why they are doing it.
> 
> It is the responsibility of government to provide emergency service. But in order to pay for it, in this day and age, America's lowest taxes in the modern world are not going to cover it.
> 
> ...



I don't see why this is becoming the norm. I do see why we should bill for non-citizen servies and even insurance companies of those ticketed and held at fault in a court of law. There is virutally no need to pay property taxes for firefighters if we're going to double bill our residents. We pay once...paying a second time is rediculous. Crap like this is nothing short of organized crime without the celebrity billing!


----------



## 46Young (Jan 4, 2011)

Maybe this new fee will stop everyone from calling for the all too common BS neck & back Allstate-itis. If they think there's a chance of getting a $500 bill or so, maybe they won't be so apt to claim neck & back pain at an MVA to scheme on some $$$'s. Maybe they'll take themselves to the hospital instead. 

If this acts as a deterrent for BS MVA injury claims, then I'm for it. If it forces people to drive safer, due to the risk of a $500 bill for an accident, then I'm for it. Otherwise, I'm with others that say these services ought to be covered by taxes alone.


----------



## Bosco836 (Jan 4, 2011)

This seems to be a hot button issue in Canada as well : http://www.windsorstar.com/news/LaSalle+accident+victim+protests+bill+from+town/4012085/story.html


----------



## eynonqrs (Jan 4, 2011)

*Good luck collecting from the insurance companies.*

I know several departments that have tried to bill for rescue services on MVA's. Insurance companies are very reluctant to pay. There is alot of paperwork involved and it's not worth the aggrivation. I can see why they are doing it, but are they really going to generate that money that they predicted ? My service that I volunteer with runs a rescue, we debated about billing for such services, but like I said it's not worth it. With the way the newer cars are safer, it's becoming a rarity to have entrapment, it's more confinment when all you need is a crowbar or good old fashioned hand tools. Most of the time it's traffic control and sweeping up bits of glass or rubbish and a little kitty litter.


----------

