Press releases should be filed with the press officer, please.
Ad hominem much?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Press releases should be filed with the press officer, please.
Ad hominem much?
I agree with BEN (obviously).
If you choose to feel sorely about those who have (arguably) better jobs than you do, call up your retired co-workers who agreed to do away with pension-based retirement systems in lieu of the 401k that you have now.
The fact is that, by design, fire based EMS can be superior simply because of established infrastructure and overall lower costs of doing business for that specific line item. Are we paid well? Sure. Do we arguably do much more than the standard single-function? Yes.
Those who say that EMS is 80% of what we do are comparing apples and oranges. Depending on the response area, call volume will likely be 65-85% EMS, but if you consider hours worked per member, the numbers start to reflect more accurately what we do.
Example: 3 person engine crew and 2 person medic respond to a medical. Engine is committed for 20 minutes and medic unit committed for 1 hour. That total 3 working hours for that call.
House fire call requires 3 engines (9 personnel), 1 truck (4 personnel), 1 medic (2 personnel) and a Chief. If the engine companies are committed for 3 hours each, the truck for 1 hour, the medic for 1 hour and the Chief for 2 hours, the total commitment for the call is 35 hours to run one call... And a simple residential at that. If it were a multi-alarm commercial or significant vegetation fire, the hours will grow exponentially.
We are required to respond appropriately to all calls at any time. To deny us that reality is to preach and maintain ignorance.
As for EMS, the quality of care is determined by the individual. I have worked with every kind of medic partner, both private and municipal. There are ****ty medics on both sides of the fence.
Are there plenty of single function medics who are better than I am at that one discipline? Absolutely. You ******* better be... That's your ONE JOB.
That being said, am I proficient in my skills and able to serve my community adequately, especially in a busy urban area with short transport times? Absolutely.
Bottom line is this: if you don't like the job you have, apply for mine and be a great fire medic. My guess is that if your chosen mode rebellion is to complain, you'll complain wherever you are.
Welcome to the Internet.If you "can't be bothered", then simply sit back and read the commentary train silently. Your input added nothing.
You certainly misused it. It's ok though. After all, you're just a dumb fire fighter.Sure I do - an ad hominem seeks to discredit the source, rather than debate the talking points. In this case, the press release comment was intended to discredit or marginalize the post by saying that it resembles a press release by the IAFF rather than original thought. Then, being marginalized, there is no need to respond to the points made in that post. An abusive ad hominem is when you call the poster names or attack their character/
Your reply is full of assumptions, innuendos, and flat out ignorance.
First and foremost, I don't see any "extortion" taking place to pay my salary. My salary is dictated by a union contract that is renegotiated every 2 years. That contract is negotiated between the union and the elected officials of the city.
Oh no? Then what did you mean in your first post when you wrote:Secondly, I don't work "only 2 days a week" as you put it.
I work 8-9 days a month and make north of 70k a year with a 25 year pension.
The problem is most of the anti fire based EMS folks do two thing; they pain with a very broad brush and they sell themselves short. Don't assume all fire based agencies are created equal as they are not. The pay, benefits, retirement, and career progression in single role jobs is poor because so many single role providers have reduced themselves to believing that it is ok and the fire guys are "extorting". They always talk about advancing clinical standards which is very improtant but they should also not settle and advance their career standards as well.
Welcome to the Internet.
You certainly misused it. It's ok though. After all, you're just a dumb fire fighter.
(See what I did there?)
Sure I do - an ad hominem seeks to discredit the source, rather than debate the talking points. In this case, the press release comment was intended to discredit or marginalize the post by saying that it resembles a press release by the IAFF rather than original thought. Then, being marginalized, there is no need to respond to the points made in that post. An abusive ad hominem is when you call the poster names or attack their character/
I'll pick my battles here and just comment about the bolded the statement, which I believe to be wholly inaccurate. Quality of care is absolutely determined by the system. If the system refuses to hold its providers to a reasonable standard, that is a failed system, plain and simple. And there are many fire departments that do not hold its providers to a standard under the guise of "its only one role that they play." If you're going to provide EMS, you need to do it right. Part of doing it right is designing the right system for the covered area and then having a culture that supports its implementation and continued efficacy. Leaving the individual provider to determine the quality of care is how poor expectations and subsequent crap systems develop.I agree with BEN (obviously).
If you choose to feel sorely about those who have (arguably) better jobs than you do, call up your retired co-workers who agreed to do away with pension-based retirement systems in lieu of the 401k that you have now.
The fact is that, by design, fire based EMS can be superior simply because of established infrastructure and overall lower costs of doing business for that specific line item. Are we paid well? Sure. Do we arguably do much more than the standard single-function? Yes.
Those who say that EMS is 80% of what we do are comparing apples and oranges. Depending on the response area, call volume will likely be 65-85% EMS, but if you consider hours worked per member, the numbers start to reflect more accurately what we do.
Example: 3 person engine crew and 2 person medic respond to a medical. Engine is committed for 20 minutes and medic unit committed for 1 hour. That total 3 working hours for that call.
House fire call requires 3 engines (9 personnel), 1 truck (4 personnel), 1 medic (2 personnel) and a Chief. If the engine companies are committed for 3 hours each, the truck for 1 hour, the medic for 1 hour and the Chief for 2 hours, the total commitment for the call is 35 hours to run one call... And a simple residential at that. If it were a multi-alarm commercial or significant vegetation fire, the hours will grow exponentially.
We are required to respond appropriately to all calls at any time. To deny us that reality is to preach and maintain ignorance.
As for EMS, the quality of care is determined by the individual. I have worked with every kind of medic partner, both private and municipal. There are ****ty medics on both sides of the fence.
Are there plenty of single function medics who are better than I am at that one discipline? Absolutely. You ******* better be... That's your ONE JOB.
That being said, am I proficient in my skills and able to serve my community adequately, especially in a busy urban area with short transport times? Absolutely.
Bottom line is this: if you don't like the job you have, apply for mine and be a great fire medic. My guess is that if your chosen mode rebellion is to complain, you'll complain wherever you are.
You really shouldn't take the things said on these forums so personally. Clearly I was speaking in general terms and not about you or your department, since I have no way of even knowing where you work.
I don't begrudge you for having a good job that you enjoy. And as I wrote earlier, I'm not even necessarily against the idea of a fire-based EMS system. I'm against inefficiency when it comes to taxpayer dollars, and poor focus when it comes to the prehospital expert who needs to know more and more all the time. And unfortunately I see a lot of room for that in fire-based EMS.
That's great. The problem though, is 1) most people pay exactly zero attention to local politics and do not vote in local elections and referenda, and more importantly, 2) just because a majority of voters support politicians who support fire-based EMS doesn't even begin to prove that it's the best way. Maybe everyone in your community really is well-informed and truly supportive. Great. Still doesn't mean there's not a better way. Remember Cash for Clunkers? Ever hear of the "Bridge to Nowhere"? I could list hundreds of other programs that were approved by taxpayers and even popular among many at the time, but in retrospect, can be viewed as nothing more than a massive waste.
And if you don't think taxation is a form of extortion.....try choosing not to pay your taxes because you strongly disagree with how your hard earned money is being used, and see what happens. Then look up the definition of "extortion". Then explain the difference to me.
Oh no? Then what did you mean in your first post when you wrote:
Is 8-9 days a month substantially different than 2 days a week?
Whenever this discussion comes up, you guys brag about how much better your salary, benefits, and working conditions are than what most single-role paramedics enjoy - just look at you and 46young's first replies to this thread - and you try to frame the overall debate as one of "we are just treated like we should be treated, and you guys are letting yourselves get shafted".
Look, I'm glad you guys tend to have it good, but guess what: your compensation isn't what this debate is about. This debate is about the best way to deliver prehospital care, not the best way to get high salaries for paramedics.
Again, I am not strictly against fire-based EMS. But as a taxpayer, I find it hard to believe that it's an efficient model. And as a clinician, I find it hard to believe that the combined firefighter/paramedic role attracts or breeds the kind of dedicated and clinically-focused expert that we need to keep improving prehospital care.
Inigo was right; that word does not mean what you think it does. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when the user overtly attacks somebody or subtly casts doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.
What you're referring to is a Genetic Fallacy, in which an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
You're welcome.
...No need to split hairs, call it what you want, the end result is the same - attempted marginalization of the post, then willfully avoiding further discussion on the topic.
You really shouldn't take the things said on these forums so personally. Clearly I was speaking in general terms and not about you or your department, since I have no way of even knowing where you work.
I don't begrudge you for having a good job that you enjoy. And as I wrote earlier, I'm not even necessarily against the idea of a fire-based EMS system. I'm against inefficiency when it comes to taxpayer dollars, and poor focus when it comes to the prehospital expert who needs to know more and more all the time. And unfortunately I see a lot of room for that in fire-based EMS.
That's great. The problem though, is 1) most people pay exactly zero attention to local politics and do not vote in local elections and referenda, and more importantly, 2) just because a majority of voters support politicians who support fire-based EMS doesn't even begin to prove that it's the best way. Maybe everyone in your community really is well-informed and truly supportive. Great. Still doesn't mean there's not a better way. Remember Cash for Clunkers? Ever hear of the "Bridge to Nowhere"? I could list hundreds of other programs that were approved by taxpayers and even popular among many at the time, but in retrospect, can be viewed as nothing more than a massive waste.
And if you don't think taxation is a form of extortion.....try choosing not to pay your taxes because you strongly disagree with how your hard earned money is being used, and see what happens. Then look up the definition of "extortion". Then explain the difference to me.
Oh no? Then what did you mean in your first post when you wrote:
Is 8-9 days a month substantially different than 2 days a week?
Whenever this discussion comes up, you guys brag about how much better your salary, benefits, and working conditions are than what most single-role paramedics enjoy - just look at you and 46young's first replies to this thread - and you try to frame the overall debate as one of "we are just treated like we should be treated, and you guys are letting yourselves get shafted".
Look, I'm glad you guys tend to have it good, but guess what: your compensation isn't what this debate is about. This debate is about the best way to deliver prehospital care, not the best way to get high salaries for paramedics.
Again, I am not strictly against fire-based EMS. But as a taxpayer, I find it hard to believe that it's an efficient model. And as a clinician, I find it hard to believe that the combined firefighter/paramedic role attracts or breeds the kind of dedicated and clinically-focused expert that we need to keep improving prehospital care.
And I find that most people that express "like" for the FF/EMS mix are either FFs for whom becoming an EMT or Medic was the cost of admission to join their local fire department or fire department leaders who are riding the back of EMS to keep their departments solvent.
Makes sense from a budget, management and training standpoint? Show me a study not sponsored by the IAFF, IAFC or any other entity with a vested interest in the fire side that demonstrates that to be the case. From a call numbers stand point? Only if you are using EMS calls, which now typically account for upwards of 80% of a Fire/EMS system's calls, to justify the budget for the fire side of the system. Almost all tangible measurements? What other measurements are there that might make your case?
Ultimately, the only measurement that truly matters is the level of care provided by a system and that is a direct measure of the competence (which is the sum of the education, training and experience) of the EMTs and Paramedics providing that care. Prove to me - empirically, not anecdotally - that the typical fire system provides a higher level of care than a typical third service and you might convince me. Otherwise, your simply regurgitating IAFF/IAFC propaganda.
/soapbox
Define "higher level of care," then please provide a link that shows how third service EMS provides this "higher level of care." I've already addressed the "80% EMS call volume" fallacy....
Oh oh pick me lol. I'm an odd municipal private hybrid that provides a higher level of care than most places.Define "higher level of care," then please provide a link that shows how third service EMS provides this "higher level of care." I've already addressed the "80% EMS call volume" fallacy.
There are just as many substandard third service departments as there are fire based. There are just as many high quality fire based EMS employers as there are third service singles.
Oh oh pick me lol. I'm an odd municipal private hybrid that provides a higher level of care than most places.