Sure, the consumers will not be touched, even the consumers who \”have a few too many\” and cause the collisions won\’t be billed for these services. Who else but the \”deep pocket\” insurance companies.
I\’m a volunteer for the local fire department. We don\’t have the call volume to warrant such a policy. A few of our neighboring Fire Departments however have been doing this for years. There\’s a distinct difference though… they don\’t bill those who reside within the boundaries of their fire district. The logic here is those citizens have already paid for the services. Just as in the artilce, an interstate runs through the fire district. There are a high volume of calls providing services to those who haven\’t paid taxes within that district. In these circumstances I see no problem in charging for extrications and hazmat calls. Equipment used in either application is EXPENSIVE! As an example it costs $60k – 100k for one set of extrication tools (think jaws of life). The more the set is used the faster it will need to be replaced. If the department is providing an unbalanced ratio of services (taxpayers residing inside their district vs. those residing outside the district) a higher volume of money can be spent than that coming in from tax revenues.
I can\’t see that you can\’t pick on non-residents to bill, just because they don\’t pay taxes. Where do you draw the line – will the policy charge for investigating an accident? Will they bill for saving you from a robbery? Is their a provision in the law that allows tax supported public entities to charge for their services, above the general tax revenues they receive? I doubt it. You are opening Pandora\’s box for unlimited extra \”fees\” charaged by tax supported government entities.
So it\’s ok to bill the insurance companies, but consumers won\’t be impacted…
1) what about accidents caused by uninsured motorists? So it\’s ok to hit insurance companies for people who do the right thing and carry insurance, but what do you do about people who disregard their responsibility and are uninsured?
2) how can you argue this won\’t impact consumers? If insurance companies pay these loss costs, that by consequence must raise premiums. Everyone will pay for these costs.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Its about time as most fire policies have $500 for this but it is seldom ever used.
Sure, the consumers will not be touched, even the consumers who \”have a few too many\” and cause the collisions won\’t be billed for these services. Who else but the \”deep pocket\” insurance companies.
I\’m a volunteer for the local fire department. We don\’t have the call volume to warrant such a policy. A few of our neighboring Fire Departments however have been doing this for years. There\’s a distinct difference though… they don\’t bill those who reside within the boundaries of their fire district. The logic here is those citizens have already paid for the services. Just as in the artilce, an interstate runs through the fire district. There are a high volume of calls providing services to those who haven\’t paid taxes within that district. In these circumstances I see no problem in charging for extrications and hazmat calls. Equipment used in either application is EXPENSIVE! As an example it costs $60k – 100k for one set of extrication tools (think jaws of life). The more the set is used the faster it will need to be replaced. If the department is providing an unbalanced ratio of services (taxpayers residing inside their district vs. those residing outside the district) a higher volume of money can be spent than that coming in from tax revenues.
I can\’t see that you can\’t pick on non-residents to bill, just because they don\’t pay taxes. Where do you draw the line – will the policy charge for investigating an accident? Will they bill for saving you from a robbery? Is their a provision in the law that allows tax supported public entities to charge for their services, above the general tax revenues they receive? I doubt it. You are opening Pandora\’s box for unlimited extra \”fees\” charaged by tax supported government entities.
So it\’s ok to bill the insurance companies, but consumers won\’t be impacted…
1) what about accidents caused by uninsured motorists? So it\’s ok to hit insurance companies for people who do the right thing and carry insurance, but what do you do about people who disregard their responsibility and are uninsured?
2) how can you argue this won\’t impact consumers? If insurance companies pay these loss costs, that by consequence must raise premiums. Everyone will pay for these costs.
Isn\’t this what tax dollars are for???