EMSA speaks now are you listening?

[Jason]

Here's the deal: Mayor Kathy put together a bunch of brains last year to study if EMSA or the  Fire Department should provide ambulance service in Tulsa. Main reason that happened at all is because EMSA needed money this year for the first time to offset Medicare cutbacks. The group figured out that even though EMSA needed some dough, they were much cheaper and a better choice than fire department. Fast-forward to today – mayor has picked EMSA, but mayor doesn't have money to fund the service. So mayor looks at what other cities are doing. Owasso, Jenks, Coweta and others pay for ambulance by a water bill, so how about us? What EMSA wants to do is charge people about three bucks a month and give them a membership in return. They'd charge apartment complexes too based on how many people live there. And people who don't pay a water bill (snobs who wreck their Mercedes on I-44 between St. Louis and the Dallas Galleria, illegals) don't get a membership – they pay the whole load when EMSA's paramedics save their lives. It'd be nice if they paid EMSA in the same way they paid police and fire, but if it's a choice between fixing potholes or paying three bucks a month, I'll pay. Damn potholes have already cost me $1200 this year.

[RecycleMichael]

How much they charge for non-single family customers will be the key. If a regular residence is charged three dollars, will a 300 unit apartment complex be charged 900 dollars a month?

How do you charge non-residential customers? Businesses also have reasons to call for an ambulance.

What is the charge for a retail store when the customer is from out of town?

[shadows]

Due the fact that EMSA is a third party provider which is a public service duplicated by the fire department, who has the same resources to hire paramedic to run the vehicles own by the taxpayers of the city, it would indicate someone is cutting a piece of the pie that should go hungry.  

The three dollars each meter would come to $36 yearly which is another bait on a fishing pole dangling before the citizens, same as the presumed $1.75 SWM fee in the beginning.   The fairytale mayor can and as time go on it will become more noticeable to the struggling public that they are being baited again.   Look the bait over and smell it before you swallow it.   The roller coaster we are riding on may have already been dismantled.        

[inteller]

i just saw those *****es on TV saying it would only cost each (legal tax paying non welfare citizen) only 10 cents a day to keep people recieving medical care with getting stuck with a fat bill.

well if you are in an emergency, regardless of how you got there, paying the bill is your problem.  if you decide to not call an ambulance because you cant afford it and die as a result..thats just Darwin economics for ya, may the fittest survive.  I'm sure there are plenty of low lifes around I would rather not subsidize to get picked up and taken to the hospital.  You can feel the same way about me and thats fine, because I dont expect -NOR WANT- someone to pay my bill.

[Steve]

Anyone else see the giant full-page EMSA ad on page A10 of today's Tulsa World?  The back page of the front section?

The ad touts what a great public service EMSA has been and then says:

"Our city leaders are crafting a plan that will provide quality EMSA care to ALL TULSANS for about 10 cents a day!  In return, residents will never pay a bill for emergency ambulance care."

Although they don't flat out say it, they are obviously advocating the proposed EMSA subsidy on city utility bills.  Ads of this sort make me immediately suspicious, if I were not already.  I don't know what full page Tulsa World ads go for these days, but if EMSA has money to waste on propaganda such as this, they must not be hurting too badly.

[inteller]

well, when you chase down everybody with a cut finger in town, you can afford those ads.

This was the exact schpiel those *****es said on TV, my bull**** alarms were going off before she said anything because EMSA has no need to advertise PERIOD.  This is tax payer lobbying.  It should be banned unless an opposition group is given equal time at no charge.

if this passes people will call the ambulance for the dumbest of things, stumped toe, call an ambulance.....head stuck up your arse, call an ambulance.  It is a vicious cycle that will keep costing more than the taxes bring in.  EMSA bought off the fire department so they wouldnt push to take over the service, now they are going to try and get a tenure. **** this.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

Anyone else see the giant full-page EMSA ad on page A10 of today's Tulsa World?  The back page of the front section?

The ad touts what a great public service EMSA has been and then says:

"Our city leaders are crafting a plan that will provide quality EMSA care to ALL TULSANS for about 10 cents a day!  In return, residents will never pay a bill for emergency ambulance care."

Although they don't flat out say it, they are obviously advocating the proposed EMSA subsidy on city utility bills.  Ads of this sort make me immediately suspicious, if I were not already.  I don't know what full page Tulsa World ads go for these days, but if EMSA has money to waste on propaganda such as this, they must not be hurting too badly.

The same full page ad is in the World today for the second day in a row. (Tues. page A5)  It will probably appear many more times before the issue is settled.  Whatever EMSA's financial situation is, they seem to have a fully funded advertising budget.  

[shadows]

If one has the only ambulance contract in town it kind 'a floors the average citizen to see the adds in the only news paper and on the TV telling us how great a job they are doing.   Sixty percent of the runs are transfers.  A large percent of those are paid by Medicare.   The complaint is that Medicare reduced their payments on which all the conversations seem to be about.

Has anyone looked to see how the amount was supposedly reduced?

[Wilbur]

I found today's Tulsa World article and proposal a little disappointing:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070321_1_A1_ERWor57062

We already have a voluntary program that costs $50 per year.  Now we are going to offer a voluntary program that costs $43 a year in hopes more people will sign up and make up $2.3M.

I also found this little item interesting:   Those who decide not to participate would be required to sign a document...  How on earth do you enforce that section?  Turn off my water if I don't sign the document?

How many people actually need a total care program.  Does not most health/automobile insurance cover the cost of an ambulance ride (I know mine does)?

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I found today's Tulsa World article and proposal a little disappointing:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070321_1_A1_ERWor57062

We already have a voluntary program that costs $50 per year.  Now we are going to offer a voluntary program that costs $43 a year in hopes more people will sign up and make up $2.3M.

I also found this little item interesting:   Those who decide not to participate would be required to sign a document...  How on earth do you enforce that section?  Turn off my water if I don't sign the document?

How many people actually need a total care program.  Does not most health/automobile insurance cover the cost of an ambulance ride (I know mine does)?

I suppose that if you don't sign the waiver, you will have the charge on your monthly bill.  If you don't pay the ambulance charge on the bill, eventually unpaid charges will result in your water being shut off and trash pickup halted.

The World article makes no mention of people without insurance.  I assume they are fully covered too if they pay the $3.64 monthly fee.  Seems to me that this would be incentive for private insurers to drop ambulance coverage from individual and group policies for Tulsa-area residents, since Tulsa is basically deciding to self-insure for ambulance service.  Then EMSA would have to up rates and that $3.64 soon becomes $5.64, $10.64, $25.64 ...

And once again, the single person gets the shaft.  Why should a single-person household have to pay the same tax as a household of 2,3,4 or more?  Completely unfair.

Is EMSA a public utility or a private corporation?  Councilor Martinson says "It's not EMSA's responsibility to figure out how we pay the bill, it's ours."  This sounds like EMSA is a public utility.  In that case, I say any resident that has bad-debt ambulance fees outstanding should have ambulance service terminated for themselves and their dependents until fees are paid.  Either that or face jail time or community service.  Maybe then abuse and deadbeats would decline and this whole utility tax nonsense would be moot.

[Wrinkle]

This deal stinks to high heaven.

If this doesn't get voted down by the Council, they will be permanently marked as useless.

It isn't the responsibility of EMSA to find a way to get this paid, but it is to show why it's needed. If they're just trying to make up revenue the Feds say isn't needed, then it is just revenue protection.

The ad hock method being presented is a tax, which requires a vote. "Optional" fees which impose penalties are not optional.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

This deal stinks to high heaven.

If this doesn't get voted down by the Council, they will be permanently marked as useless.

It isn't the responsibility of EMSA to find a way to get this paid, but it is to show why it's needed. If they're just trying to make up revenue the Feds say isn't needed, then it is just revenue protection.

The ad hock method being presented is a tax, which requires a vote. "Optional" fees which impose penalties are not optional.

Boy, you got that right.  It double-stinks to high heaven.  The tone of the World article and Martinson's comments smacked of "blackmail" to me.

If EMSA would do a better job of bad debt collection and cost containment, maybe there would be no need for this discussion.  I think we need an ambulance abuse ordinance like the city has for false burglar alarms.  Give abusers of EMSA services fines, jail time, or community service.

[blindnil]

Uninsured people who pay the fee would be fully covered under the Tulsa plan, but you made a good point about insurance companies trying to drop their ambulance coverage as a result.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Uninsured people who pay the fee would be fully covered under the Tulsa plan, but you made a good point about insurance companies trying to drop their ambulance coverage as a result.

Why wouldn't they?  Medicare and Medicaid may be prevented from this by law, but common sense tells me private insurers would be foolish not to drop ambulance coverage if they can legally do so.  And no private insurance reimbursements would just put more upward pressure on EMSA rates.  That $3.64 rate they are touting is just the beginning of a steady, upward climb if this scheme goes into effect.

[inteller]

will I be able to comment on the subject at the city council meeting tomorrow if I don't fill out a form for public comment?  It is kinda hard to get the comment form in by Monday if they dont release the agenda until Wed.

You know, in the telephone world if a service is added to your bill without your consent is is called "cramming"  Is there no legal recourse for something like this?  I'd like a lawyer to chime in on that.  I'll even file the suit if there are grounds.  I agreed to sewer and trash service, I did not agree to TotalCare.  In fact, since the service has been around for a while, I have had the opportunity to do so.

They also state that people living in apartments wont be covered if the landlord doesnt take an assessment on each unit (yeah right like they are going to do that) so this fee in no way is being apportioned correctly.