The former seems reasonable, but the latter is just like the vindictive soul Woonsocket's become familiar with.
You don't propose cutting someone's pay under threat of layoff, and then tell that person he or she can't make up the money they've lost with side jobs.
But then again, Cianci in Manolos has no clue how real people deal with a struggling economy.

Further, she and the Woonsocket City Council are to be applauded if this questionable practice is discontinued, though some of us continue to wonder why it was ever implemented, in Woonoscket and elsewhere.

If you could guarantee that I'd never need more manpower than just myself and my partner, I'd agree with you.

But you can't. Because like so many other people passing judgment on public safety professionals, you have no idea what actually happens when those trucks go out the door. Yet somehow you're qualified to determine it "questionable"?

EMT,
Stop with your nonsense. If we put ads in the paper for your jobs, we'd have thousands of well qualified people responding. What does it take to be a firefighter? A high school diploma? A GED? Give me a freakin break. We'd have more qualified people than we'd know what to do with.
NOBODY is Indispensable. Especially a bunch of overpaid, fat pigs!
And just remember - we pay to train you! Who the hell do you think you are kidding???
And, when firefighters have "presumptive liability" the taxpayers have every right in the world to dictate you don't have another job!

EMT, just so we're on the same page, I was questioning the practice of sending a fire truck to every ambulance call.

Here's what I know:

- For decades, big cities sent ambulances on calls without fire trucks. Many cities still do so.

Here's what I don't know:

- Was there an increase in the number of lives and the number of people whose quality of life was saved after the practice of sending fire trucks along on ambulance calls began?

- If, indeed, another person is needed on an amublance, why can't it be another EMT?

- If this is an equipment issue, why can't the required equipment be stocked on the ambulance?

EMT, just so we're on the same page, I was questioning the practice of sending a fire truck to every ambulance call.

Me too.

- For decades, big cities sent ambulances on calls without fire trucks. Many cities still do so.

Some do, some don't. I bet I can name more that do than you can that don't.

- Was there an increase in the number of lives and the number of people whose quality of life was saved after the practice of sending fire trucks along on ambulance calls began?

Moving the goalposts already? There's no way to quantify that.

- If, indeed, another person is needed on an amublance, why can't it be another EMT?

It could be. However, I will grant you that for many calls, perhaps even most, three could be considered overstaffed. But there are plenty of times where three isn't enough.

As a result, it's considered most efficient to have that manpower available, but it's not necessarily most efficient to have it on the ambulance for every call.

The ultimate problem is, you're never know how much you're going to need until you get there. "Man passed out" could very well be a cardiac arrest- 4 personnel will often be a good start for that call. "Difficulty breathing" could be because the patient weighs 350 pounds and lives on the third floor in the summer heat- two or three people may not be able to safety remove that patient from the building.

Obviously you can't staff each individual ambulance to handle a cardiac arrest on it's own, because that level of manpower simply won't be needed for most calls and is hence an inefficient use of resources. But that level of staffing MUST be available.

"Send another ambulance," you might say. Ok, which neighborhoods should go uncovered to get the two additional ambulances/4 personnel that you might need? Many departments only have 1-2 ambulances. It's pretty dangerous to tie up 3 ambulances on one call when one ambulance and one fire truck can accomplish the same thing.

- If this is an equipment issue, why can't the required equipment be stocked on the ambulance?

It's not an equipment issue.

Wait, wait, wait. EMT, aren't you defending the need of a fire truck to be sent with every rescue engine call? Because you "might" need the additional help?

Then aren't you contradicting yourself when you say "that level of manpower simply won't be needed for most calls and is hence an inefficient use of resources. But that level of staffing MUST be available."

I don't understand. It's *overstaffing* to add 1 EMT to the rescue, but it is reasonable to send 2 EMTs in the rescue and 3-5 firefighters on a fire truck? I don't get it.

And again you wrote: "As a result, it's considered most efficient to have that manpower available, but it's not necessarily most efficient to have it on the ambulance for every call."

What does "available" mean if you don't want to send another rescue to the scene? Either the additional staff is sent automatically, or they're not.

As for your other comment: "I bet I can name more that do than you can that don't." I found the definition of that right here

We all know what's going on here. This is nothing more than one group - the union firefighters - that have a vested interest in sucking as much money as possible from another group - the taxpayers. We have long passed the point where we are discussing reasonable public safety issues. However the unions understand that cloaking their demands to suck more money from the taxpayers in "public safety" is a winning strategy.
But ultimately, because they became such egregious pigs, they have forced the public into asking the right questions.
The fact of the matter is there will always be more that taxpayers want. However, we are now at the point of asking what we need. And the truth is that we taxpayers don't need the levels of "safety" that the union deviously claims.

It's going to be very interesting some day if some EMTs come across an unconscious man somewhere and pull his ID that reads "Mike Capelli". That might be one slow ride to the hospital.

We would treat Mike Capelli like we treat every person who calls 911 for help; with respect and dignity.

A call from a person with chest pain, difficulty breathing, altered mental status or other potentially life threatening situations is considered Advanced Life Support, a fire company, all licenced EMT's but without transport capabilities is sent along with a rescue, or ambulance. Anywhere from 2-4 people are on the fire company, 2 on the rescue. Since there are more strategically placed fire companies their response time is quick, usually under 8 minutes from the time the 911 call was made.

A call for stubbed toes, minor lacerations or any number of calls that are not emergencies are considered basic life support and just the ambulance is sent.

Fire department unions do not make the rules concerning responses. Never did, never will, that is an administration job.

EMT and michael

Why do you patiently try to explain yourselves to folks like Mike Cappelli and the other opponents of public safety workers on your time. Isn't it enough for you to maintain your composure and professional bearing with the people you encounter while working? Do you think that there can be any conservation when one refers to you as "egregious pigs". Of course michael he would be treated with respect by professional firefighters but why would you make yourself available for further insult.

Phil,

Every now and then I feel compelled to explain how things work in my chosen field. There are a lot of things I know little or nothing about, those things I reserve commenting on.

Mike Capeli serves a purpose, that being graphically illustrating the need for public sector unions. His commentary is priceless.

Phil, it is due to Michael's testimony, here and on his blog, that we know that city ambulances are too often called like taxi cabs and to act in other completely inappropriate and unacceptable roles.

The blame for this, along with 99% of the problems and other abuses of government services (including especially our taxes) rests squarely with one party: our elected officials.

(Do you suppose Mayor Cicilline even knows about the considerable abuse of tax-payer paid ambulances?)

Why do you patiently try to explain yourselves to folks like Mike Cappelli and the other opponents of public safety workers on your time.

If you notice, I haven't addressed a single word Capelli has said, nor do I intend to. Monique is at least a rational, reasonable person. She's worth my time and effort, because she's at least willing to listen. And not foaming at the mouth, which makes conversation much easier.

Wait, wait, wait. EMT, aren't you defending the need of a fire truck to be sent with every rescue engine call? Because you "might" need the additional help?

As I said. We don't know what we need until we get there. If we need it, we need it NOW. (I'm speaking somewhat hypothetically when I talk about engine responses. My 911 experience is at a volunteer department that does not dispatch an engine to EMS calls other than car crashes. If I need help, I have to wait for people to come from home. It's not fun.)

I don't understand. It's *overstaffing* to add 1 EMT to the rescue, but it is reasonable to send 2 EMTs in the rescue and 3-5 firefighters on a fire truck?

Correct. The majority of calls don't necessarily require more than 2 people (though one more does make life easier during a 20-minute ALS transport). As I alluded to before, the calls that DO need more than 203 people need that extra manpower NOW, not 5 minutes from now- cardiac arrest, major trauma, critical medical, obese patient.

I'd rather have 2 plus some calls with another 4 (and can cancel the additional 4 when they're not needed) than be limited to a total of 3 on all calls.

What does "available" mean if you don't want to send another rescue to the scene? Either the additional staff is sent automatically, or they're not.

A second rescue for one patient is not an effective use of resources. The second vehicle can't be left at the scene, so I'm never going to have both personnel from that truck able to join me enroute to the hospital.

An engine, on the other hand, has 3 or 4 personnel, and in a city that has a hospital in it or close by, I can take 2 or 3 of them and still have the driver available to either take the engine back to the station, or follow me to the hospital. If all I need is one more, they can lend me that one additional person and still stay in service. An ambulance can't do that.

{If you notice, I haven't addressed a single word Capelli has said, nor do I intend to. Monique is at least a rational, reasonable person. She's worth my time and effort, because she's at least willing to listen. And not foaming at the mouth, which makes conversation much easier.}

Emt

Here is where I can agree with you. I don't think that his comments are worthy of a response. I cannot agree with you on the matter of Monique's rationality.

Michael

Thank you for your response. His comments are not priceless. They are not worth anything at all.

Monique or whoever you may be this week

The question should not be if there are seemingly unnecessary rescue calls but are we equipped to respond to the necessary ones. We cannot trust our elected officials in all cases in this regard, evidence the last eight years of George W. Bush not to mention Mayor Cicilline, former Mayor Cianci, former Mayor Laffey, and Mayor Menard. Public safety unions are putting the public interest ahead of the politican's interest.

You are correct, Phil. I've learned to read the name of the commenters at AR before reading the comment. Some times I can actually skip the comment altogether, most of the time I just brace myself for the stupidity and consider the source before proceeding.