NationStates Jolt Archive

So which do you think is better and why? Firefighters who are funded by taxes collected by the government, or free enterprise firefighters who would need to be paid by people who want fire protection?

Government all the way. Private fire services are a risk I'd rather not take.

Govt funded. I don't like the idea of privatised fire services.


'Oh shit my living rooms caught fire... Hey sweetie? The living rooms on fire! Do you know where the yellow pages are? What? OK.. *rummage rummage rummage* Right lets see.. which one of these places has the best deal on house fires... hmmm... oh shit all my stuffs already burnt...'

My town is volunteer, and funded by a seperate tax. :)

Volunteer and government sponsored are best. I dont want firefighters to help only those who can afford it.

Government control.

Volunteer and government. Though, that's not to say you can't start your own fire fighting business... Just don't expect to make much money.

So which do you think is better and why? Firefighters who are funded by taxes collected by the government, or free enterprise firefighters who would need to be paid by people who want fire protection?
Government. Funded. Contractors. All the way. Otherwise I could be rescued from a fire and have to pay somewhere in the region of £1000 as a compulsory fee!

Private, because the bobbleheads who have replied thus far for 'government' are flaming morons.

Govt-funded is better.
Although I'm pretty big on privatizing/eliminating certain parts of the government, basic civil services like this, police/military/etc, should be kept gov't-funded. I still have queasy feelings concerning "contractors" (mercenaries) and the like...

Private, because the bobbleheads who have replied thus far for 'government' are flaming morons.

You're the only pro private so far, so can you explain further? (About private fire contractors and why they would be better, not flaming morons.)

So which do you think is better and why? Firefighters who are funded by taxes collected by the government, or free enterprise firefighters who would need to be paid by people who want fire protection?

They tried private fire fighter initiatives in New York once.

They used to set up road blocks to keep other fire brigades from getting to the fire on time so that they could be there first. They were paid based on who got to the fire first. Of course, this resulted in letting lots of houses burn down. Oddly, it had worked better when they weren't paid at all, they were just volunteer outfits.

So how would you work a pay for spray system?

They get paid based on how many fires they put out?
You'll see a large spike in the arson industry.

People take out contracts with the local fire department to put out their fires if they have any?
You won't be able to get fire fighters to come from neighboring districts in the case of really large fires, and poor people won't take out contracts because they'll figure that they'll save money by just not starting fires. So then when poor towns start fires the whole town will go up in smoke. By the time the fire spreads to rich areas the fire will be too big to fight.

Despite politician's fondness for kitsch it isn't always, or even usually true that "the private sector does it better."

As long as you get the firefighters to play fair, the private sector can do better.

You could make laws to restrict directly competitive actions. And you could have privitized fire fighters be paid by tax dollars and not fees.

And isnt it bad that we have privatized hospitals (in America)?

Whoever does it more efficiently is best.

To those pro-government posters who invisage a Roman Fire Brigade (negotiate a price for the property before extinguishing fire), pull your heads out of your arses.

The most efficient option is private firefighters contracted by government

Government funded firefighters get a lot more trust from the public.

Private firms are in it purely for profit...I mean, why else would they be private? The whole point of the private sector is making money, no?

Even if they are paid in the same manner as public services, they will be suspected of having restrictive rules that hurt their ability to fight fires. They will be suspected of having budget limitations that cannot be financed by taxpayers in case of overruns.

God forbid you live in a poor area...what then? How much service can you get for the pittance one would be able to pay the contractors?

Somethings actually make more sense if they are run by a disinterested 3rd party. They won't PROFIT, but they will make more people safe and happier with their service. I guess if you see all things in life as purely material, and all services purely as a method of obtaining profit...you won't like my arguments. I urge those in this situation to take an Ethics or Civics course and learn some basic humanity.

i wouldn't trust someone with my life if profit is their, or their companies' primary motivation
government i can trust a little more

yay for the NHS!! :) :)

as the old song about conservatism goes

i'll eliminate the taxes that are breakin' all our backs's, and push for more privatisation.

i think that explains my views entirely.

PRIVATISATION!

Would a private company invest in the extra equipment that is needed to deal with major emergencies, just to see it sitting idle most of the time?

Would a private company waste money training its firefighters in how to do CPR? They are paid to put out fires, not saves lives.

Yes, there are basic things that are so necessary that putting it in the hands of someone who isn't volunteering or has a business interest could be hazardous.

Even as conservative as I am, Fire, Police, and Military should all be government funded.

Private, but not in the way that most people here seem to be thinking.

There are two alternative systems that come to mind:

1. The local government, which is currently responsible for funding the fire service contracts out the task. This would build in the efficiency advantages of competitive private business, but still leave everyone covered by their basic taxation. (i,e, it is publically funded but privately run.) This is a good middle option

2. Who is it that really benefits financially from the fire service? Not the victim of a fire, nor the city where the fire occurs. It is the insurance companies that benefit. Now the fire service could easily be funded as a public service, ie free to the home owner, by the insurance companies acting together through their association. It could be made legally binding on them to so act, but it should not be necesary to enforce this. (The fire service saves them a lot of money after all)

Private, but not in the way that most people here seem to be thinking.

There are two alternative systems that come to mind:

1. The local government, which is currently responsible for funding the fire service contracts out the task. This would build in the efficiency advantages of competitive private business, but still leave everyone covered by their basic taxation. (i,e, it is publically funded but privately run.) This is a good middle option

2. Who is it that really benefits financially from the fire service? Not the victim of a fire, nor the city where the fire occurs. It is the insurance companies that benefit. Now the fire service could easily be funded as a public service, ie free to the home owner, by the insurance companies acting together through their association. It could be made legally binding on them to so act, but it should not be necesary to enforce this. (The fire service saves them a lot of money after all)

You should read up on history.
The first Fire Depts in England were funded by the Insurance companies for precisely the reasons you mention above - they decided that it was cheaper to prevent the fires than to pay out for the damages caused by it.

However...

Home owners would be given a brass plate to show that their house was insured against fire (this was the start of street numbers I think). What happened was that Fire depts wouldn't put out fires if there was no plate or there was a plate from a different insurance company there.
So the Insurance companies started paying the depts for any house fire. The payment was according to the value of the house. More expensive the building, more money earnt for the firemen.
This led to differing depts racing each other to the more lucrative fires (the ones in the posher suburbs) and fighting over who should put the fire out. Fires in low class suburbs were sometimes allowed to burn as it wasn't worth the firemen's time to put them out.
And of course there were several firemen setting fires just to collect the money from putting them out.

After years of arguing and fighting in Paliarment, it was finally privatised to stop all this.


How would letting the insurance companies run it, better the service? What if it's a fire on public land? Would they put it out? What would stop them prioritising their fires, so as to put out fires at expensive places over cheap places? What about uninsured places? Would the fire dept put these fires out, or just stand around making sure that no insured building goes up? Would an unisured person be sent a bill for the fire?
Would they attend car accidents? There's not much value there for insurance companies as it's not like turning up is going to save the car.
Would they invest in new equipment, or just make do with the minimum amount to do their job. Would they attempt to rescue people in the burning buildings? Why? It's not saving the building, and in fact would cost the insurance company money, as it would take time better used in putting out the fire and the cost of the equipment for the firement to get in there is very expensive.
Training? Why train firemen in First Aid in their job is only to save the Insurance companies money from saving the buidlings.
Private companies are concerned with two things - making money and saving money. How long would it be before they'd decide that life-saving isn't a main priority for firemen, as it's not an 'economically prudent' use of Insurance company funds.

The way you're suggesting just doesn't make much sense. It would take so much legislation and enforcement and bureacratic crap that I can't see how it would make it better than it already is. In fact your post didn't have anything in it about why or how privatising would improve the fire service. Simply, it wouldn't.

It should stay a government service. It's one of those services which should not be privatised.

I have very little trust in the private sector to begin with. I would be outraged if vital government services like firefighting were to go private. There should be some altruism among civil servants, not purely motivation by profit, which is what the private sector operates on.

Government all the way.

Volunteer and government sponsored are best. I dont want firefighters to help only those who can afford it.

exactly
There are a lot of things I want privatized, but emergency services will never be one of them

Private firms are in it purely for profit...I mean, why else would they be private? The whole point of the private sector is making money, no?

Not always. There are private organizations that are in it for the passion of the [generic thing] instead of the money...

Not always. There are private organizations that are in it for the passion of the [generic thing] instead of the money...
:D
yeah...you keep telling yourself that...

Even in a libertarian paradise, people shouldn't have to privately insure their own security.

1. The local government, which is currently responsible for funding the fire service contracts out the task. This would build in the efficiency advantages of competitive private business, but still leave everyone covered by their basic taxation. (i,e, it is publically funded but privately run.) This is a good middle option


This is what I had in mind, although I was considering it a plan for government funded firefighters.

:D
yeah...you keep telling yourself that...

So unless you're working for a government agency, you don't like anything about your career job except the money even if you work at EB games or as a game programmer or as a caterer at PlayBoy Mansion?

As long as you get the firefighters to play fair, the private sector can do better.

You could make laws to restrict directly competitive actions. And you could have privitized fire fighters be paid by tax dollars and not fees.

And isnt it bad that we have privatized hospitals (in America)?
I think that it would work quite well to have a private firefighting system. I would think financing it through premium payments like an insurance company would be the most logical. Higher risk locations have higher premiums. But the FD would have to share that risk, too. The premium ought to be reduced for excessive distances from the insured house.

You should read up on history.
The first Fire Depts in England were funded by the Insurance companies for precisely the reasons you mention above - they decided that it was cheaper to prevent the fires than to pay out for the damages caused by it.

However...

Home owners would be given a brass plate to show that their house was insured against fire (this was the start of street numbers I think). What happened was that Fire depts wouldn't put out fires if there was no plate or there was a plate from a different insurance company there.
So the Insurance companies started paying the depts for any house fire. The payment was according to the value of the house. More expensive the building, more money earnt for the firemen.
This led to differing depts racing each other to the more lucrative fires (the ones in the posher suburbs) and fighting over who should put the fire out. Fires in low class suburbs were sometimes allowed to burn as it wasn't worth the firemen's time to put them out.
And of course there were several firemen setting fires just to collect the money from putting them out.

After years of arguing and fighting in Paliarment, it was finally privatised to stop all this.


How would letting the insurance companies run it, better the service? What if it's a fire on public land? Would they put it out? What would stop them prioritising their fires, so as to put out fires at expensive places over cheap places? What about uninsured places? Would the fire dept put these fires out, or just stand around making sure that no insured building goes up? Would an unisured person be sent a bill for the fire?
Would they attend car accidents? There's not much value there for insurance companies as it's not like turning up is going to save the car.
Would they invest in new equipment, or just make do with the minimum amount to do their job. Would they attempt to rescue people in the burning buildings? Why? It's not saving the building, and in fact would cost the insurance company money, as it would take time better used in putting out the fire and the cost of the equipment for the firement to get in there is very expensive.
Training? Why train firemen in First Aid in their job is only to save the Insurance companies money from saving the buidlings.
Private companies are concerned with two things - making money and saving money. How long would it be before they'd decide that life-saving isn't a main priority for firemen, as it's not an 'economically prudent' use of Insurance company funds.

The way you're suggesting just doesn't make much sense. It would take so much legislation and enforcement and bureacratic crap that I can't see how it would make it better than it already is. In fact your post didn't have anything in it about why or how privatising would improve the fire service. Simply, it wouldn't.


You could try reading what I posted instead of jumping into a historical argument that actually does not apply to what I posted.

Let us review a little the idea I put forward.

Did I say that the home owner had to have insurance to receive protection? NO.
Did I say that only those with some sign indicating that they had paid would receive protection, NO.
Did I say that the fire protection service would be run by any one insurance company? NO.
Did I say that the fire service would be paid on the basis of each fire extinguished? NO.

Did I say that those that benefit most from fire protection are the insurance companies? Yes.
Did I suggest that as an industry, not as individual companies, they should provide fire protection? Yes
Did I suggest that this might be, but should not need to be enforced? Yes.

So where does your criticism actually address the suggestion made. It does not. The fire service would be the same as it is today, with the same interstrs and actions, It would simply be funded by an association of insurers rather than by the public directly. How is this more complicated, how would it change the service provided? It would not.

Attending car accidents also saves the insurers money. Remember it is the insurer that ends up paying for lost working time, injuries, disablement, loss of possesions etc in a car accident. The fire service reduces all of these factors. One more reason why the fire service should be funded by the association of Insurance companies.

Please read and think before reacting.

1. The local government, which is currently responsible for funding the fire service contracts out the task. This would build in the efficiency advantages of competitive private business, but still leave everyone covered by their basic taxation. (i,e, it is publically funded but privately run.) This is a good middle option
this is the model i like, also called quasi-markets. get the efficiency of private enterprise but with funding & operations mandate from the govt.

a number of problems with this system though:

1. how to give the private firm efficiency incentives? throw bonuses at them when the do well? fine them when they underperfrom? sure, BUT without the risk of bankruptcy and there being no shut-down condition, as the firm will be bailed out by govt funding if it makes losses, there is a major efficiency incentive missing.

2. term of contract. short term contracts between govt and private firm causes lack of investment by that firm - why invest when you run the risk of not being the contractee (if thats a word next year? too long contracts breed complacancy. how long is the ideal contract time then?
also 'if it ain't broke don't fix it': if the current firm is doing a fantastic job but runs to the end of its contract, it stands the risk of still loosing the contract if a competator can beat them on costs.

3. if unchecked the firms can go profiteering and exploit the consumers (generally these firms are local monopolies often legally so)

there was another problem but i forget it. the point is that Thatcher introduced these a fair bit in the UK with Compulsory Competative Tendering, meaning that at the end of a contract it was compulsory to tender the contract to at least 2 firms - the one with lower costs would (most usually) win, even if the quality of service were to deteriorate. hence problem #2. Thatcher also underfunded these firms in an effort to cut back public services funding, and hence underpaid workers in these firms - leading to a lack of efficiency incentive and also, importantly, a lack of good business talent. shoddy management and leadership lead to all sorts of problems, not really gaining from the efficiencies possible under private management.
this is why public services in the 80s sucked so much lol

quasi-markets can be fantastic - delivering all the high quality service to consumers (as well as consumer protection through government regulation) at lower costs to everyone, while still being free at the point of service. but this is only true if its done exactly right with sufficient investment and funding by the govt. it requires at least as much funding, at first, as a government run organisation/firm and over time the funding & costs can be cut as efficiency gains are realised - rather than saying 'its a private firm so its efficient' and giving it no funding right away.

thats my view anyhow

Although a private funded firefighting program may be more efficient fro the extra cash it would get, what about poor people, and than when there house catches fire and no one comes to put it out or save them.

Although a private funded firefighting program may be more efficient fro the extra cash it would get, what about poor people, and than when there house catches fire and no one comes to put it out or save them.
First, why should the consideration of the venerated poor be a reason to discount the benefits of privatization?

But if it must, consider that most poor don't own their own houses.
They rent.

Who carries fire insurance on the structure?
The landlord.

The cost of fire protection will be factored into the rent just like every other expense the landlord incurs.

Incidentally, all you renters out there have renters insurance, don't you?

Ok, your house is on fire...it's really really hot, and your 10 year old (who had been playing with matches) is upstairs, trapped.

Do you want a private contractor pondering whether the profit on that job is worth the risk or whether his employees will be putting down their picket signs, or do you want a person with a "public servant's" attitude called to the fire?

If you want someone killed, buy a mercenary. If you want your office cleaned, get a contractor who can hire illegals to clean it at 2:00 am, if you want police protection or firefighting, use public servants only.

I don't want my life or safety depending on a contractor thinking about the profit de jure or his workers thinking about going out on strike.

Ok, your house is on fire...it's really really hot, and your 10 year old (who had been playing with matches) is upstairs, trapped.

Do you want a private contractor pondering whether the profit on that job is worth the risk or whether his employees will be putting down their picket signs, or do you want a person with a "public servant's" attitude called to the fire?

If you want someone killed, buy a mercenary. If you want your office cleaned, get a contractor who can hire illegals to clean it at 2:00 am, if you want police protection or firefighting, use public servants only.

I don't want my life or safety depending on a contractor thinking about the profit de jure or his workers thinking about going out on strike.

I get a public servant's "attitude" every time I deal with the Post Office. I don't think your reasoning holds any water. Contracts do. If I subscribe to a fire fighting service, why wouldn't I expect their employees to perform as advertised?

By the way, public servants strike, too. Remember the ATC strike that Ronald Reagan settled?

Now for a different slant on the topic.
There are things at which the government does an adequate job. Providing a national defense is a pretty useful thing. This fire-fighting thing is in the margin between government and private. Since it is already a government function and done well, why not just leave it as is?

I don't see a clearly defined advantage to privatizing fire fighting, only that it would probably work well if done.

Private, but not in the way that most people here seem to be thinking.

There are two alternative systems that come to mind:

1. The local government, which is currently responsible for funding the fire service contracts out the task. This would build in the efficiency advantages of competitive private business, but still leave everyone covered by their basic taxation. (i,e, it is publically funded but privately run.) This is a good middle option

How is this a good middle option. You've got the worst of both worlds. The government pays whatever it costs to the company that does the job and the company that does the job decides for itself how to save money by providing as little service as possible while justifying as much expense as possible.

Private companies get good at what they're doing by being encouraged to compete, but when the government pays whatever the contracted company asks then there's no motivation to compete in any arena except for bribery (a la Halliburton and Lockheed Martin).

Ok, your house is on fire...it's really really hot, and your 10 year old (who had been playing with matches) is upstairs, trapped.

Do you want a private contractor pondering whether the profit on that job is worth the risk or whether his employees will be putting down their picket signs, or do you want a person with a "public servant's" attitude called to the fire?

If you want someone killed, buy a mercenary. If you want your office cleaned, get a contractor who can hire illegals to clean it at 2:00 am, if you want police protection or firefighting, use public servants only.

I don't want my life or safety depending on a contractor thinking about the profit de jure or his workers thinking about going out on strike.

Ya, privatized cops are called gangsters.

btw de jure means "by rights" (on paper rather than in fact) it looks like you meant de jour meaning "of the day."

You could try reading what I posted instead of jumping into a historical argument that actually does not apply to what I posted.

Let us review a little the idea I put forward.

Did I say that the home owner had to have insurance to receive protection? NO.
Did I say that only those with some sign indicating that they had paid would receive protection, NO.
Did I say that the fire protection service would be run by any one insurance company? NO.
Did I say that the fire service would be paid on the basis of each fire extinguished? NO.

Did I say that those that benefit most from fire protection are the insurance companies? Yes.
Did I suggest that as an industry, not as individual companies, they should provide fire protection? Yes
Did I suggest that this might be, but should not need to be enforced? Yes.

So where does your criticism actually address the suggestion made. It does not. The fire service would be the same as it is today, with the same interstrs and actions, It would simply be funded by an association of insurers rather than by the public directly. How is this more complicated, how would it change the service provided? It would not.

Attending car accidents also saves the insurers money. Remember it is the insurer that ends up paying for lost working time, injuries, disablement, loss of possesions etc in a car accident. The fire service reduces all of these factors. One more reason why the fire service should be funded by the association of Insurance companies.

Please read and think before reacting.

I think he was responding more to real world likelihoods. Just because you say a privatly funded fire company would work exactly the same doesn't mean it would. Your idea might be to have a privatly run fire company that works the same, but things rarely go according to plan, just like the private fire houses in London and New York.

The problem with having any business privatly funded is that the service has to turn a profit. You say it wouldn't be payment by each fire (or rather you don't say that it would be by the fire), but unless they get to salvage items that they save then it is not an inherently profitable endeavor. And if they are allowed to do that then what are they good for?

If the fire department is financed by insurance companies then why would they have an interest in protecting homes other than those of their customers?

If they are required to put out all fires, then why would anyone buy fire insurance if they're fires will be put out anyway?

If everyone is required to buy fire insurance then how is this not a tax and where is the benefit to the people? Private companies only provide a bargain if they're forced to compete in an open market, and if they don't have to compete because the government makes you buy their service no matter how much it sucks (like drivers insurance) then they don't have to bother improving and they can rip you off all they like.

Now that I think about it, I think it's time to socialize drivers insurance. That's the real competition. If your politician is trying to rip you off with a bill you get every other month then you can just vote him out.

How is this a good middle option. You've got the worst of both worlds. The government pays whatever it costs to the company that does the job and the company that does the job decides for itself how to save money by providing as little service as possible while justifying as much expense as possible.

Private companies get good at what they're doing by being encouraged to compete, but when the government pays whatever the contracted company asks then there's no motivation to compete in any arena except for bribery (a la Halliburton and Lockheed Martin).

You are assuming a monopoly, priveleged position (as occupied by Lockheed and Haliburton). I am assuming competition. Large cities have many fire stations, each of which could be a 'fund holding' enterprise in itself, where there is competitive tendering to offer the service at fixed intervals. It could be that the city would prefer to deal with just one company, so it would put the service out to tender as a whole. How this is supposed to give the inefficiency of government and the corner cutting of private enterprise at the same time I fail to understand, or observe where similar practice is in use for service provision. (Trash collection, public transport, road maintenance, water supply, electricity distribution are all done this way here)

Private companies could offer guarenteed protections and other benefits that local government funded fire departments cannot... It would be terrific if you could buy guarenteed fire protection...

I think he was responding more to real world likelihoods. Just because you say a privatly funded fire company would work exactly the same doesn't mean it would. Your idea might be to have a privatly run fire company that works the same, but things rarely go according to plan, just like the private fire houses in London and New York.

The problem with having any business privatly funded is that the service has to turn a profit. You say it wouldn't be payment by each fire (or rather you don't say that it would be by the fire), but unless they get to salvage items that they save then it is not an inherently profitable endeavor. And if they are allowed to do that then what are they good for?

If the fire department is financed by insurance companies then why would they have an interest in protecting homes other than those of their customers?

If they are required to put out all fires, then why would anyone buy fire insurance if they're fires will be put out anyway?

If everyone is required to buy fire insurance then how is this not a tax and where is the benefit to the people? Private companies only provide a bargain if they're forced to compete in an open market, and if they don't have to compete because the government makes you buy their service no matter how much it sucks (like drivers insurance) then they don't have to bother improving and they can rip you off all they like.

Now that I think about it, I think it's time to socialize drivers insurance. That's the real competition. If your politician is trying to rip you off with a bill you get every other month then you can just vote him out.

Can't people read on this forum at the moment?

THE FIRE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE RUN BY ANY ONE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Why do people buy fire insurance now. The fire service will put out the fire anyway. Think about it.

You take the existing fire service, and you bill it to the insurance companies association. What is the problem with that? If they don't like it, they stop funding it and they lose a lot more money. Ergo they like it. Yes they would transfer the cost through in insurance premiums, and this would reflect the risk and the value. Those with big houses, with high value would pay more than those with small homews. There would be discountsa for smoke alarms, for regualr wiring checks etc. Preventitive as well as functional.

The service would not need to make a profit. The profit is there in the reduced insurance claims.

No one will be required to buy fire insurance, as now, but do you have it? I do. If you own a home and you don't have at least the structure insured I guess you like running stupid risks. (Mortgage companies require it anyway.)

You are assuming a monopoly, priveleged position (as occupied by Lockheed and Haliburton). I am assuming competition. Large cities have many fire stations, each of which could be a 'fund holding' enterprise in itself, where there is competitive tendering to offer the service at fixed intervals. It could be that the city would prefer to deal with just one company, so it would put the service out to tender as a whole. How this is supposed to give the inefficiency of government and the corner cutting of private enterprise at the same time I fail to understand, or observe where similar practice is in use for service provision. (Trash collection, public transport, road maintenance, water supply, electricity distribution are all done this way here)

Those things are done on a regular basis and can actually be monitored for quality of service.

So how do they compete exactly? Areas that loose the least homes to fires have their territories expanded? Well then you've just created an incentive for one fire company to make it more difficult for another to put a fire out.

What are the grounds for competition exactly?
Who puts out the most fires? You tacitly encourage arson.
Who prevents the most fires? You tacitly encourage arson in neighbooring districts.
Who causes the least percentage of each flaming house to be lost? You tacitly encourage arson near to the fire house in your district and far from the firehouses of other districts.

You can't just stake the claim of competition on your ideology. The rules of nature don't follow ideologies. In trash collection you can see cleaner streets. In road construction you can see who puts down the best roads.

Some public services work well when done privatly, some don't and have to be run by the government. Take a look at NYC since you mentioned public transportation. The government runs the subways. They're not really privatizable. Yes they've got their problems with corruption and bureaucracy, but they're still the best way to get around the city. Bus routes are open to private companies to bid on because it's something that can be attempted without much risk.

But what are the risks if fire fighting turns out not to be as privatizable as you seem to think in some nebulous fashion?

You take the existing fire service, and you bill it to the insurance companies association. What is the problem with that?

If I had an insurance company I would stop offering fire insurance and get out of the association. Fortunately, as I live in a free country, it would be well within my rights not to offer fire insurance and to leave the association. I would leave because I would think that fire insurance would soon become very unprofitable and bad for business.

The increased cost of fire insurance would mean less fire insurance would be bought. The less fire insurance that is bought, the higher premiums will have to be to pay for the fireservice, causing even less people to buy fire insurance. I doubt you'd end up with enough money to run an effective firefighting service. Those insurance companies that remain in the business would be seem as bloodsuckers that are endangering people's lives. In the insurance business, without your reputation, you're nothing.

my fire department is strictly volunteer as are all the neighboring towns. The nearest government-funded stations are over 50 miles away. Our FD is funded by local donations and grants. It is not tax funded. Neither is our ambulance service. Both are top notch and highly rated.

I get a public servant's "attitude" every time I deal with the Post Office. I don't think your reasoning holds any water. Contracts do. If I subscribe to a fire fighting service, why wouldn't I expect their employees to perform as advertised?

By the way, public servants strike, too. Remember the ATC strike that Ronald Reagan settled?
*snip*

1. the postal service and air traffic controllers are federal employees, not local government employees. ATC have a safety-related job and are prohibited by federal law from striking---that's why they were fired!

2. in Texas, firefighters who are governmental employees are prohibited by law from striking.

3. my point stands.

Ya, privatized cops are called gangsters.

btw de jure means "by rights" (on paper rather than in fact) it looks like you meant de jour meaning "of the day."


I meant what I wrote....I don't want a contractor thinking aobut how much he is going to make on that job vs. the risk he's taking on.

However, "de jour" would have been clever....

1. the postal service and air traffic controllers are federal employees, not local government employees. ATC have a safety-related job and are prohibited by federal law from striking---that's why they were fired!

2. in Texas, firefighters who are governmental employees are prohibited by law from striking.

3. my point stands.
When an occupational group is prohibited by law from striking, that doesn't prevent them from doing so. As you pointed out in the case of ATC, they went on strike and were fired. So there's a consequence to going out on strike, but the government doesn't force them to work.

There are numerous cases of "blue flu" among police departments that don't like the collective bargaining terms that they are offered. That might not be a strike by legal standards, but it certainly reduces their availability. I don't see why, and maybe they have, firefighters don't employ the same tactics as government employees.

In terms of the availability argument, it looks like a draw. You haven't told my why a contract isn't as binding as a law preventing strikes. It's just as enforceable. Neither prevents the work action, but both provide consequences.

I suspect that if a fire department were privatized, it would be more like the way a city water or airport authority is privatized. Several companies respond to a RFP, a winner is chosen, and then their performance is monitored over a probationary period. The city may even pay them directly and we will never see the change in our taxes. Or, if the city is a little more honest than most, we might see the tax rates decrease as savings are realized.

You don't go to jail for breaking a contract.

Government firefighters in states that have made it a criminal violation for striking can go to jail.

My opinion is driven by my life experience: my family has tended to be driven to public service -- grandfather (Spanish-American War and WWI), father (WWII, Korea, & Viet Nam), brother (Viet Nam - 2 tours, Panama, & Bosnia), brother-in-law (Viet Nam - 3 tours, Panama, Bosnia, Desert Storm), me (Viet Nam 1 & 1/2 tours)....we all have served in the military and all have been in combat...and all have retired (mine is a 100% disability retirement).

We all would go into a burning building to save you when I believe that some subcontractor would quit.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

You don't go to jail for breaking a contract.

Government firefighters in states that have made it a criminal violation for striking can go to jail.

My opinion is driven by my life experience: my family has tended to be driven to public service -- grandfather (Spanish-American War and WWI), father (WWII, Korea, & Viet Nam), brother (Viet Nam - 2 tours, Panama, & Bosnia), brother-in-law (Viet Nam - 3 tours, Panama, Bosnia, Desert Storm), me (Viet Nam 1 & 1/2 tours)....we all have served in the military and all have been in combat...and all have retired (mine is a 100% disability retirement).

We all would go into a burning building to save you when I believe that some subcontractor would quit.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

I don't know that it's relevant, but I retired from the USMC after 12 years of flying Intruders and 8 years of busy work in the reserves. I understand the military and I understand combat. I was busy laying mines in Kuwait harbor back in the early days of 1991. Sorry to hear about your disability, thanks for serving when so many wouldn't.

I'm not a firefighter and I don't know any. From what I've seen, firefighters don't join the force for money, anyway. I think a good many of them have second jobs to help make ends meet. In Atlanta, firefighters don't even get paid on the same scale as policemen. Because of the character of a man that joins the FD, I don't think it really matters whether he's bound contractually or legally to fight a fire or to rescue those in danger. I think he will do it because it's the right thing to do. I think the same people will join a FD whether it's government or private.

One thing that might come from privatization is a better allocation of resources. Equipment might be replaced more regularly and might be kept more up to date to lower operating costs. A city FD may be inclined to hold on to things way past their prime because the replacement cost is so high and they can always get the operating costs covered by the city.

Another thing that privatization might pave the way for are bonuses. I've already stated that firefighters are the kind of men that will will risk life and limb without regard to money. What if someone performs an especially heroic action? What does he get now? A medal and maybe favorable consideration when the next promotion is due? How about giving him a cash bonus, too?

The big thing that isn't necessarlily guaranteed in a private system is a pension. Certainly, that's for the company to decide. Twenty years is plenty to serve in a hazardous profession, you and I both know that. It isn't enough to build a secure retirement. That's an important detail that would have to be worked out, but I don't think it's a show stopper.

I think private fd's would be a bad idea.

Lets look at the medical insurance industry (I'm not arguing for nationalized health care here, its jsut a good example)

There are many many healthcare insureance companies. You choose the one that you think has the best coverage for the price you are going to pay. So far, it is okay.

Now, why are doctors prices so high? No, it isn't because they are greedy. First of all, doctors will say "You might have [insert disease], but to be sure, we need to run tests a, b, and c." Now, the healthcare company will look at this, and tell the doctor they will pay for only a. This won't give a definite (or atleast AS definite) result as the 3 tests, but will be cheaper.

That is bad enough (an MBA deciding what tests are needed rather than a doctor). It gets worse. The healthcare companies will then say "You charge $100 for test a. We will pay $25, the patient will pay his $10 copay. The rest, too bad". (Some healthcare companies only pay ten cents on the dollar).

So now we have a private company that CLAIMS its patients health is its primary concern, but is deciding not all tests are needed (even tho a medical professional feels they are) and deciding the test is not worth what it costs. They care about profits (there are some very good companies out there, but they are quickly being bought out by more profitable companies [anthem/blue cross blue shield is a good example]).

Now, this shows clearly that although there are SOME good companies out there, the ones who do care are often taken over by larger, more greedy companies.

Personally, I don't want a fd saying "Okay, we'll put out the fire and attempt a rescue under this circumstance, but under that circumstance, we wont save them"

The government does a fine job with fd's, as do volunteer groups. These are the most appropriate way to go.

And I'm not saying that the workers are greedy. It is the CEO's and people at the top that cause the problems. The point of a private company is to make money for the owners/shareholders. This is their ONLY responsibility to anyone. Sure, the workers at EA games (I think that was what someone mentioned earlier) might love their jobs. But if their jobs stop making the corporation money, they will be fired or the company will fold. That simple. I don't want to be living in an area where the fd folds.

Keep the military, fd, and pd under government control.

I think private fd's would be a bad idea.
...
Keep the military, fd, and pd under government control.
Where are you Pirate? You have some good points for discussion. I'd like to continue it.

Fire protection needs to be avalible to everyone whether they pay for it or not. Thus, government.

Fire protection needs to be avalible to everyone whether they pay for it or not. Thus, government.
All property owners already do pay for it. Thus, it doesn't matter if it is privatized.

City water services are a popular thing to privatize. The water still runs in every house, everyone still pays the city, but the service can be made more efficient. The bills to the city are lower, the fees for the citizens are lower.

All property owners already do pay for it. Thus, it doesn't matter if it is privatized.

City water services are a popular thing to privatize. The water still runs in every house, everyone still pays the city, but the service can be made more efficient. The bills to the city are lower, the fees for the citizens are lower.


I don't think you can make that leap to "it doesn't matter if it's privatized" from the fact that all property owners already pay for it.

The issue is whether this service that is so critically safety related should be let out to private contractors.

So, do you have historical data showing that private firefighters save more lives and property that governmental firefighters? Or, at least that they save the same amount and are less expensive?

Even if less expensive, whaqt is the length of the "study"? Was it long enough to see how high the cost shot up after the initial period the contractor had locked in for the contract?

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of public confidence. In matters such as fire fighting and police protection, I'm not willing to let the contracts out to private bidders who are driven to profit and cost-cutting rather than government supervisors & grunts who are driven to public service.

I made my early comment about my family background just to show a lineage of public service -- it's what I know and what I trust.

I just don't get this attitude that so many privatizers come up with that private is necessarily more efficient. Sorry folks--it just ain't so. There are indeed some cases in which the private sector is more efficient and better equipped than government--retail sales springs immediately to mind. But for public services--fire protection, police protection, military, public utilities, hell, even the DMV, government is more efficient for one simple reason.

There's no attempt to profit from the provision of the services.

Public utility companies don't have to report to stockholders. PG&E does. ConEdison does. The Fire Department doesn't, and thank goodness for that, because they'd be very selective about what areas they protected over others.

Part of the idea behind a government of the people, by the people and for the people is that, in at least some areas, all the people ought to be cared for equally, and public utilities and protection are those places.

I just don't get this attitude that so many privatizers come up with that private is necessarily more efficient. Sorry folks--it just ain't so. There are indeed some cases in which the private sector is more efficient and better equipped than government--retail sales springs immediately to mind. But for public services--fire protection, police protection, military, public utilities, hell, even the DMV, government is more efficient for one simple reason.

There's no attempt to profit from the provision of the services.

Public utility companies don't have to report to stockholders. PG&E does. ConEdison does. The Fire Department doesn't, and thank goodness for that, because they'd be very selective about what areas they protected over others.

Part of the idea behind a government of the people, by the people and for the people is that, in at least some areas, all the people ought to be cared for equally, and public utilities and protection are those places.
Yay!

It reminds me of the arguement about how good for the consumers deregulation of S&L's and utility companies would be. Privitizing public services would be even worse.

I don't think you can make that leap to "it doesn't matter if it's privatized" from the fact that all property owners already pay for it.

The issue is whether this service that is so critically safety related should be let out to private contractors.

So, do you have historical data showing that private firefighters save more lives and property that governmental firefighters? Or, at least that they save the same amount and are less expensive?

Even if less expensive, whaqt is the length of the "study"? Was it long enough to see how high the cost shot up after the initial period the contractor had locked in for the contract?

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of public confidence. In matters such as fire fighting and police protection, I'm not willing to let the contracts out to private bidders who are driven to profit and cost-cutting rather than government supervisors & grunts who are driven to public service.

I made my early comment about my family background just to show a lineage of public service -- it's what I know and what I trust.
No, I don't think there is any historical data. This is all an academic exercise, anyway. Governments aren't going to turn over essential services to private contractors. I'm just interested in how it _could_ be done.

Profit is not bad. Cost-cutting isn't bad, either. Hidebound practices are bad. The private sector is more likely to modernize any facilities because it cuts down on operating costs. That saves money in the long run.

The government is less likely to make the big expenditures needed for modernization because their funding doesn't really make that easy. The city/county is more likely to fund higher operating costs on a year-to-year basis because it's easier to project. For a government, it's a question of politics.

As far as cost cutting and budget shortages, look at large cities. Are they staffed to a proper manning level? Atlanta City policemen and firemen are short staffed and have been for quite a while. Cities can play the cost cutting game, too. A contract with a private service could require a certain manning level in all stations.

I think if this is ever going to be done, it still has to rely on a "probationary" period where the city can observe the new steward of the service. Then either permanently award the contract or re-bid it.