Paying for 911 calls
Nope, not a hypothetical. At least not in Tracy, California.
It's purely voluntary, though. Don't worry! You can either pay an annual fee of $48 and use 911 as often as you want, or pay nothing at all!
Oh. Oops. Unless you need to call 911 that is. Then you'll have a $300 fee.
My inner libertarian likes this plan. Luckily, my inner libertarian is currently being held in a very painful full nelson by my inner common sense.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."
find me at Goodreads
I guess someone has finally taken the "negative rights" philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Now the interesting thing is whether the voters will like it. After all free police is just socialist welfare for bad neighborhoods. If you just work hard enough you can solve your problems without relying on handouts.
Last edited by Feirefiz; 21 Feb 2010 at 09:04 AM. Reason: Oh, sorry. I see it is only for medical emergencies.
Yeah, on the one hand I think, "Well hey, no more problems with 911 being underfunded. If they need more people on call they'll be able to afford it, since they'll be getting money when people use the service!"
And then I think of being alone in my house in the middle of the night, hearing what sounds like someone breaking in and thinking, "Okay, can I really afford the $300 or should I just hope it's nothing?"
Unfortunately, the article didn't mention if everyone was getting a tax cut since they'll now be paying for 911 directly.
I would say that your title is a bit misleading - even in major cities we all pay for 911. It's just usually that the funding comes via taxes on your phone bills. AIUI that's changing with the way that landlines are becoming scarcer as cellphones and VOIP phones are taking more and more of the market share.
From there, various localities are trying different ways to keep 911 centers funded. Again, AIUI, it's usually done by negotiating with the providers to mimic the normal 911 center taxes that a land line in the jurisdiction would be charged. But, at the moment the traditional way in which 911 centers have been funded is coming up short, and is often needing to be adjusted.
There are going to be many ways in which this is going to be accomplished. Some better than others.
And some absolutely vile.
The method being chosen here by this community strikes me as being utterly boneheaded. And the result of an administration that is afraid to try to get a tax increase to cover their revenue shortfalls. It's an attempt to raise revenues by assigning fees, without actually doing the dreaded "raising taxes." From a practical point of view the record-keeping and billing aspect of this are going to increase the overhead for the 911 call center, which means that any purported savings for this nonsense will likely be eaten up right there. Then there's the problem that subscription fire services are often dramatically underfunded, because so many in those communities think that it's a luxury. I doubt they'll be getting enough subscriptions to meet their operating costs, and that their service fees will be sufficiently slow in paying that those won't cover operating costs, either.
Add to the problem - are they going to be charging that $300 fee for non-residents who are passing through the township and need to contact emergency services?
It's just a bone-headed move all around.
I don't know, I can see both sides of this. People have to pay for 9-1-1 service anyway, and my impression is that part of what we're paying for is people making unnecessary phone calls for non-reasons. Making people pay for 9-1-1 more directly would probably help with that.
On the other hand, I guess when it's all said and done I don't really want people having to do that calculus of "should I pay $300 or just hope it's not really a heart attack?"
I wouldn't mind seeing fines routinely levied for misuse of 9-1-1 though.
Originally posted by Exy
As someone who brought someone to the ER with a possible heart incident, the hospital made it clear to us, that even though we thought it wasn't likely an emergency, they prefer that such cases present to them from an ambulance call. Ignoring the benefits for care available if the patient goes into distress during transport, it allows the hospital to get a head-start on triage, admissions, and even beginning treatment.
In short, if you believe that there's a chance you're having a heart attack, call 911!
And this policy is going to interfere with that.
This I could get behind 100%. I'd want to see some tolerance, and understanding for maturity levels (i.e. don't charge for the first time a toddler makes the call.) but overall it seems a damned good idea. Not waiting til someone has called over 1000 times for spurious reasons before talking about charges, either criminal or financial.I wouldn't mind seeing fines routinely levied for misuse of 9-1-1 though.
Now that I noticed that it's only for medical emergencies I have some questions.
I assume the fee would include a trip in an ambulance and possibly emergency treatment on the way. Is that correct?
How is this handled usually? Around here ambulances do cost money but it is covered by health insurance (and here almost everyone is insured.) In cases of misuse the insurance won't pay your bill.
No, 9-1-1 is for any emergency in which you'd want emergency services. Crimes in progress, fires, medical emergencies, car accidents, etc. The only times I've ever called were upon witnessing car accidents by other people. (And you can bet I wouldn't pay $300 for that, especially since I wasn't the first person to call either time it's happened.)
The ambulance and medical care both cost money but if you are insured your insurance will normally cover it.
Yes, but the way I read the article, the fee is only for medical emergencies. That's why I wondered what it covers and what would normally be free.
Personally, while I see where you're getting that idea from, I would be more likely to ascribe that to poor reporting/writing, than to believe that the fee only will be charged for medical calls. Certainly it doesn't jibe with the claim later that paying the $48 fee will allow unlimited calls, and that the $300 fee would be charged "if they make a call for help. "
Of course, with a plan this bone-headed, I wouldn't want to go on record saying that it's impossible that it would work the way you're reading the article.
Oh, oh, well, now that I too have read the articleI see what you mean but I think that's bad writing. The majority of 9-1-1 calls are probably not medical, at least so I would think, and so I'm guessing this probably applies to everything. It wouldn't make sense for people to get charged for calling about Uncle Larry's heart attack but leave them alone for calling about how McDonald's is out of chicken nuggets.
I really don't understand the aversion to taxes. I view mine as an all-inclusive fee that covers such services. Whatever's left out of my paycheck is money I KNOW I have to work with, and I don't have to worry about paying for little things like 911 calls. And of course I wonder how this works for out of town visitors. If I'm driving through/by Tracy (as I do several times a year) and my dad has another heart attack, or if I witness a car accident, or try dying or something, do I have to pay the $300 too? (this is a trick question-since I'm also uninsured the only way I'm getting in an ambulance is if I'm unconscious and someone calls it when I can't tell them not to)
While I can see how this might reduce fake calls, I can't see this being any kind of good idea.
these videos were the first thing that came to mind when I read this. They're much less funny to me now.
Last edited by RabbitMage; 21 Feb 2010 at 02:40 PM.
I can't speak to an aversion to taxes - I want to keep them as low as practical, yes, but like you I view them as something that gets a number of government services. Including items like roads, police, and 911 call centers.
However, this may not be an aversion to taxes, the action of a group of elected officials who are facing a budget crunch in a state where the taxes are seen to be both higher than they are in other states, and demonstrably getting fewer services for the taxpayer than many of those other states. Whether this perception is accurate, or not, it doesn't change that introducing new taxes is going to be phenomenally unpopular, esp. for a service that should already, in the taxpayer's eyes, be covered by the taxes they are already paying.
[sarcasm]
When taxpayers get really upset they can do all sorts of short-sighted and silly things. Including voting out the elected officials who raised their taxes then next time that incumbent's name is presented to them in a ballot booth. Obviously, to avoid this catastrophe it's much better, for all involved, to simply increase revenues by adding fees for the taxpayer that obviously aren't taxes since they're fees, so the incumbents are safe come the next election. And good government is all about returning the people with experience to office, after all.
[/sarcasm]
More seriously, I've been seeing a variation of this thinking here in NY. Because the kleptocrats in the state legislature are unable to consider something like, either cutting spending, or raising taxes, the governor has been more or less forced to increase revenues by advocating a large number of increased or new fees across the state, many of which are monopoly charges for no actual service provided, or at least no new service.
It's either a desperation measure because the people who could authorize new tax levies won't, or an attempt to raise revenues without actually telling the voters that their taxes are going up.
Either way it represents a failure of some officials (hopefully elected officials, who can and will be fired come the next election) to be honest and up front about their situation.
California, at this point, is fundamentally broken and no one seems to have a damn clue how to fix it. We're forcing government employees to take days off because we can't afford to pay them, among other things. I guess charging for 911 calls is a stop-gap measure until we fall into the ocean.
I'm planning to move to Oregon, anyway.
I threw it out to my sister, who is a 911 dispatcher (and the bane of her existence is frivolous calls). She says her concern is that "it would also discourage bystanders from calling, which is sometimes all the notice we get..."
Which I thought a good point. It's one thing to decide your personal emergency is worth the fee; another entirely to drop $300 on some stranger's car wreck.
Yeah, that's a very good point, artifex. Not that I needed more to hate this idea.
Right. The only times I've ever called were for other people.
Sorry, but I don't have $300 to drop on some random stranger on the off chance no one else has called yet.
I think calling for other people or being there from out of town are really valid arguments against it. I don't think $48 a year is unreasonable for residents and I would hope anyone who was so ridiculously destitute that they couldn't afford that would be given some sort of financial assistance or something, but it isn't always locals making those calls and it isn't always a call for yourself.
My objection is not with the amount of the fee for the subscription. As you say, $48 isn't an unreasonable fee for the benefits a 911 center provides.
I object to the voluntary nature of the subscription, and the effects it's likely to have on the most vulnerable people.
Add the same fee to the property or school tax bill, and make it just as non-discretionary, and I've got no problem. I wouldn't be happy to see the new tax, and may try to vote KBO, but I wouldn't think the people involved are idiots and charlatans.
You know those news stories that pop up every so often about some lady in the drive through at McDonalds calling 911 because her nuggets are cold or something? These people would then become the underwriters of the national 911 program by paying $10k fines for doing so.
Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.
Problem is I strongly doubt that lady had $10,000.
She will if it's entered as a civil jugment and her paycheck is dunned for the next three years.
Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.
I wouldn't think it was that big a deal if it cost like $ 2. $ 300 is ridiculous. Or maybe just have any 911 call you make automatically sign you up for the $ 48 service for the rest of the year.
The neighbor's house is burning. *shrugs* I just can't afford $ 300 right now.
Last edited by Tinker; 23 Feb 2010 at 03:17 PM.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
Bolding mine. Yeah, that sounds far more reasonable. The $300 charge is just sort of offensive when you think about what the service is for.
But additional charges for frivolous uses of 911? I could get behind that.
I think that's an even worse idea than the current plan, though. In effect what it's saying is that: If you do end up needed this service which we've got to fund whether you use it or not, this year, we'll let you pay the same rate we're charging from those of your neighbors who are willing to pay to have this service available if they should need it. From a strict cost/benefit analysis: Why would anyone pay for the subscription until they've needed to use 911 that year?
Make the as-needed opt in more like twice the good neighbor rate, and I'd be happier, but I still think you'd end up hugely short of operating funds. For all that 911 centers are often very busy, I doubt, strongly that they're actually providing service, every year, to even every other household in a given locality.
It presents opportunities for insurance companies and for private emergency service providers. Sounds like 19th century New York City, with subscription fire services.
Last edited by Muffin; 23 Feb 2010 at 05:40 PM.
Call 911 and pay a few hundred bucks, or just shoot the intruder?
Ugh. This whole idea is so distasteful. I would be terrified to live in a community where people are looking at their account registers before they call in the ambulance for an incident that happens in front of them.
My dad is only alive today because someone called 911 right away when he was involved in an accident in 2006 (added to the fact that the ambulance garage was right up the street.) With the level of injury he had, every moment counted. There is no time in a situation like that to throw financial concerns in that make people hesitate to call. Lives are literally on the line.
We are human after all...
AKA meenie7
Does this mean they are going to ask for a Credit Card number if your phone number doesn't match one on the subscription list?
and what happens if it gets declined?
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Posting rules
Reply with quote
