Should Kunkel be a monopoly?

[Swimmy]

Maybe I have this wrong, but didn't the UFD have to prove a "need" BEFORE the ambulance service became effective? If so, why would it have to re-prove a "need" unless this was political in nature and pressure stemmed from Kunkel solely?

[dan]

I think (and I could be wrong) that the city found a way around the need rule, or at least deferred it to this date. They were able to push off showing need until they were established.

For the record I fall on the side of government NOT competing with private business. I firmly believe in competition, just not from the public sector.

[Swimmy]

Ah, thanks for clarifying because I was having a hell of a time trying to figure out why UFD would have to show a need if it would have had to before deploying the ambulance force.

[Clipper]

Tell me the truth Dan ( I won't tell anyone else, haha) Would your opinion in any way be tainted by the recent furor over annexation of the masonic home, and the discussions and comments about fire protection? (only picking on ya)

I tend to lean toward being really pissed off at Kunkel, if the effort to put the city's ambulances in mothballs is successful. NO I DON'T LIKE Jack and Carol Kunkel. Nothing against the quality of their service or against their dedicated personnel, but I simply find the Kunkels to be cocky arrogant pains in the ass, with political connections that I imagine have been bought and paid for year after year, as they grew bigger and bigger.

In my opinion, the City of Utica should have started an ambulance service way back when Hinckley and Wurz and Veteran's Ambulance service went under, and when Kunkel only had two or three rigs.

Would one not have to wonder why another commercial service has never started up in Utica, or why Edwards has never grown to be a larger service? I have to imagine that it is because Kunkel has enough influence on all fronts and enough money to run them out before they get started.

I am surprised that Kunkel "allows" Edwards to retain most of the Sauquoit Valley, and a few calls in the New Hartford area. How nice of them.

[corner]

as some one who rode with the utica fd ambulance service after my motorcycle accident in 06 i cant speak highky enuff of the service and professionalism of the emts on board havinf my lower leg and ankle crused the care and wonderful pain relief these guys are worth every penny fortuantely i was consious enuff to have them take me to st lukes instead of st e's which was apparently next on the rotation...they kill people there.

[Clipper]

You would have been safe at St E's Corner. They only kill protestants, hahahahalololol!

[gearofzanzibar]

Feb 2, 2009 13:05:16 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Exactly! As long as the services in question meet the standards of care, and have the latest in equipment and technology, there is no justifiable reason for a "council' or "board" to interfere in fair competition. Especially when there has BEEN NO FAIR competition in the Utica area for years.

The government shouldn't be running an admittedly for-profit business. What's fair about taxpayers paying for ambulance service twice?

[bobbbiez]

for professional, excellent life saving care!

[Swimmy]

How does the taxpayer pay twice?

[dan]

The perceived first payment is support through taxation, which supports public safety and the fire department. Russ Brooks got it through that the ambulance service could recoup their costs through billing the vic's insurance companies at the same rate the private ambulance services do. This way the taxpayers pay for the labor and supplies that are budgeted for and the insurance companies provide the "extras".

[Swimmy]

But in practice, there is only one true payment because the taxpayer costs are reimbursed from the insurance companies. Or am I missing the point?

[dan]

Because the department is supported through taxation AND is allowed to bill for their services for ambulance runs it is considered "double tapping". The general consensus is if the city can't afford the ambulances by budgeting for them then they should defer to the private companies. The true numbers have been vague, but according to Russ the ambulances make a profit of about $500,000 per year, which goes ??. He says it goes back into the general fund to offset city costs, but there has been no "open books" regarding the actual costs vs income.

To clarify, I have no axe to grind here. I've never worked for either the UFD or Kunkle but I have had more direct dealings with Kunkle than the UFD ambulance service. I cannot comment on their talents, but I do know Joey Morgia and if there's anyone I have respect for it's him. I feel that both services probably provide equal services, some individuals are always better (or worse) than others and when you call for a rig, you get the crew that happens to be on duty. My joining in this debate is strictly a government vs private argument. Where the government has to by law, or through a dire necessity provide a service then it can be justified, but where the need hasn't been determined then I'll fall squarely on the side of free enterprise.

[Swimmy]

Dan, I do not have the perception that you do have an axe to grind. My questioning is merely to gain a better understanding of the situation. Personally, I have firm opinion. I understand your perspective and tend to agree that it is a bad idea for government to actively participate in matters that should be left as purely private, reason being that a government business can always undercut the private business. The loss the government incurs by doing so is offset by taxes and the businesses end up funding their inevitable dissolution.

On the other hand, if a cheaper service is required and the government is the only entity able to offer it, then why not? But based on what you're saying, it really is not saving the individual who uses the municipal EMT services ANY money because the insurance is still paying for the same costs it would pay for a private firm's services.

I appreciate your input and insight. Thank you for explaining in a manner that I could better understand.

[Swimmy]

It appears that perhaps the UFD is not being completely transparent with its figures if, as dan states, there is nothing reflected in the general slush fund for the taxpayer reimbursements from making insurance claims. Therefore, I wonder if the UFD is profitable at all.

[bobbbiez]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm under the impression that the UFD's vehicles are called to all scenes where an ambulance is needed anyways, so how is it costing the taxpayer more?

I say if they're there anyways, then let them do what they are expertly trained for.