- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
Because they deserve to be paid for their services.
I think they don't have any money in the budget and it's either charge people for their services or there are more layoffs. That's the name of that tune, as Baretta would have said. Happy Tuesday Babe! :) ((hugs))
I think most of you are a little mislead about how the charges work. This is how we do it at my department and as a home owner and tax payer, I agree with it.
When you call 911 from HOME... there BETTER NOT be a bill. End of story.
Tourism is a huge part of the entire states income. When people come here from out of state... they obviously aren't paying the taxes supporting the local fire department. But they call us when they need us, and we come running. We wouldn't change it for anything. But, who is to pay for that diesel fuel ? The medical supplies we use ? The other fire truck and crew that had to go to the local taxpayers house instead of us ?
City departments are paid by the city taxes. So if you get in an accident in a city other than your own, you would be receiving a service for free in that city... that other taxpayers are paying for. Fire Departments should only be trying to collect from people out of their district. If your local dept is charging you twice I would raise holy cain.
I better have a choice before they come. I don't call 911 if I don't want to pay for an ambulance ride, therefore if I'm in a wreck or need rescued I'd like to be asked first...assuming I'm conscious. If I'm not then Law would say it's implied consent. I still would not be happy about it. As a tax payer I have a right to reasonable services. The next thing you know the cops will start charging every 911 caller. Imagine your home is being invaded, possessions stolen, plus you get a bill from the police department....I can see it now!
They are paid to fight fires. If a cat is in a tree, someone or something may burn while they are rescuing the darn cat. The people who call them for those type of things should pay instead of the taxpayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think this is appalling.
If I have to pay the price of my emergency services out of pocket, then why the &^%$# are we supporting these services with our tax dollars?
That's like buying car insurance, then having to pay for your own repairs when you get in a wreck.
I am somewhat sympathetic to having people who engage in extra-risky activities (e.g. climbing up the face of El Capitan) having to cover the costs of their potential rescue, but as a general public policy this is ridiculous.
How much money does a fire fighter make an hour?
by Answerbag Staff on June 13th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
How much does a san fransisco fire fighter make annually?
by Answerbag Staff on May 26th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
How much does a fire fighter make a year?
by Answerbag Staff on May 24th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Should this Fire Chief be disciplined for this? (link in descr.)
by 383Corvette on July 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What's the difference between a fireman and a firefighter? Besides that "cool" sounding name?
by Michelle J on July 10th, 2011
| 7 people like this
You're reading What do you think of fire depts billing individuals after helping with car accidents & other emergencies?
Comments
They are already funded via property taxes, local taxes, etc.. This is in addition.
by Scifisuz on April 21st, 2009
It's to stop the stupid calls to them. They are paid to fight fires, not get cats out of trees, etc. The taxpayers don't want to pay for that.
by Rollie on April 21st, 2009
@Rollie - true - but they always have gotten cats out of trees, etc. in the past without more $$$. +pts.
by Scifisuz on April 21st, 2009