It's time to end socialized fire and police services now
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03kristof.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF talking sense.

In truth, despite the deeply ingrained American conviction that government is bumbling when it is not evil, government intervention has been a step up in some areas from the private sector.

Until the mid-19th century, firefighting was left mostly to a mishmash of volunteer crews and private fire insurance companies. In New York City, according to accounts in The New York Times in the 1850s and 1860s, firefighting often descended into chaos, with drunkenness and looting.

So almost every country moved to what today’s health insurance lobbyists might label “socialized firefighting.” In effect, we have a single-payer system of public fire departments.

We have the same for policing. If the security guard business were as powerful as the health insurance industry, then it would be denouncing “government takeovers” and “socialized police work.”

Throughout the industrialized world, there are a handful of these areas where governments fill needs better than free markets: fire protection, police work, education, postal service, libraries, health care. The United States goes along with this international trend in every area but one: health care.

The truth is that government, for all its flaws, manages to do some things right, so that today few people doubt the wisdom of public police or firefighters. And the government has a particularly good record in medical care.

Thomas Jefferson advocated for and instituted public schools and compulsory education, making him our country's first socialist. Glenn Beck should expose the dirty commie.

All Volunteer Fire Brigade
 

Well, 99.95% (One paid professional fireman from 8 to 5:00 M-F)
AND we have the Lowest Insurance rates in the County!
[AND they beat all comers in the "Fire Rodeos" competition]

Kinda... But no.

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent's refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father."

Sounds like a good deal. But who pays the salary of the one professional?

It's an interesting concept, the public fire dept. thing that is. When a building is burning, questions aren't asked about whether the building or its owners are worthy to have the fire put out at public expense. The public, over time, has found that the cost of uncontrolled fires can tend to be far more than that required to put them out.

It's not as clear a case, but one can be made that public health care could operate under a similar dynamic. The various costs associated with having diseased people lying about on the sidewalk, or simply of the workforce losing skilled workers are tangible. A case could be made that our current setup is too inefficient at mitigating those costs. Insurance companies always looking at the bottom line before dispensing care, or paying for it at any rate. And for many conditions, that's the same as denying care.

I wonder if anyone has argued that fires should not be put out if caused by someone who is a leech on society.

I have run across subscription fire departments. There's a yearly fee. If you don't pay the fee, the firemen won't fight the fire. Don't know if there are many of those left, but that kind of system is not unlike the current health care situation.

There's a big difference. If you've paid the bill, they won't decide to drop you when you call them to a fire.

Heyah...

You come to our Fireman's Ball......and we'll come to your FIRE!!!!!:D:D

Guy went the hospital, doctor says you got 6 months to live. He couldn't pay the bill, gave him another 6 months.

Equating firefighting to health care is dumb. Especially since the current debate hinges on government CONTROL of the system. The problem is they want to cover the 15% of Americans without coverage (a lot of which choose to be that way) by breaking the system for the other 85%, most of whom are happy with it the way it is. Common sense dictates that a proposed plan SOLVES the problem, which is not the case with Obama. His plan is to CONTROL the system.

Everybody will need to spend money on healthcare at some point in their life, MOST people will not have to use the services of a fire department. As people get older, more money is spent on health issues. As you get older, there is no increase in usage of the fire department by the same people. To the fire department, each citizen is equivalent, which if that was the case in healthcare, we would not have a problem.

The problem with healthcare has been known for years, anybody with a brain saw it coming. You can also substitute the word "social security" for "healthcare" and the problem is the same.

And for those not in the know, it was caused by the aging of the baby boomers. When the boomers were contributing to the system, all was well. Problem is they get older, retire and now start to suck out of the system. But now we have more people on the debit side than we do on the credit side. The young financed the old, but now the old outnumber the young substantially.

Maybe the government had hoped for another baby boom, who knows? Either way what has happened was ALWAYS going to happen, no way around it without increasing the supply or decreasing demand. They cannot force either, and the supply of medical care has been flat for years, so increasing demand automatically means reducing supply RELATIVE to demand, which will be rationing.

I know of at least one town where the firefighters are bleeding the budget red, cops to. So currupt...for example they have three fire cheifs...all getting paid near $100k a year...

Question. Lets say, for the sake of argument that healtcare is the same as the fire and police services. Not saying it is but just for the sake of argument.

Lets also say you have been caught by Bubba and his gang. Bubba decides that he wants some from you and takes it. He has just stuffed his wang back into his pants and zipped it up. What now? Since you just got raped by Bubba, if, for the sake of argument again, you had the choice, would you want his gang to leave you alone or do you invite the rest of his gang to take a turn? After all, you just got raped by Bubba so what is a few more?

Were are the Police when there is an eye socket incident? :confused:

Usually protecting the donuts store.