The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

August 26, 2009 » Financial News Update - 08/26/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country… writes:

[...] How Success of Private Fire Departments Undermines Obamacare [...]

August 26, 2009 Joseph Cooper, Sunnyvale California writes:

I was very happy to come across your website. As an Obama supporter, I have been trying to find out if there are any rational arguments to dispute the idea that public health care is similar to the public firehouses we have always had. After reading your lame arguments, I can now safely say that there are none. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

August 26, 2009 Matt Arnold, Alabama writes:

Privatization of many traditional “public sector” services can be a great boon to the economy. I found this true when researching private prisons as an alternative to a state prison that was under construction in my community but the project had stalled due to the default of the contractor. The prison sat 80% completed and the state drug its heals in completing the project. As a local economic development official, I contacted private prison companies and found that private prisons operated much more efficiently and were much more active community partners. After selling the idea to local officials, we sought to sell the idea to the state. No such luck. Completely blocked by state employees unions. That was 15 years ago, sounds eerily familiar.

August 26, 2009 Randy Haddock writes:

Also, last I checked fire departments are managed by local and state governments. Let’s see if all those mocking those who oppose Obamacare would be as excited to have Congress run fire departments, police departments and public schools around the country.

August 27, 2009 Joe Biel, Portland, OR writes:

Sounds great! “Ingenuity” means slashing wages and benefits! What a great way to save money; by screwing workers! Why pay the “market rate”? Let’s just run all people into the ground! Then no one can afford the cost of private firecare or healthcare! Let’s consider if anyone reading this thought a “good solution” was cutting THEIR wages 30-40%!

August 27, 2009 EdG, Maryland writes:

Like many comments posted on the net, this one is not clear enough. There municipal fire departments, non-profit departments (many are the traditional volunteer fire companies) and there are for-profit fire departments.

The track record of for-profit departments is not good, primarily because they have insufficient personnel and can’t meet national crewing standards. And in some cases, their equipment leaves a lot to be desired.

The non-profit fire companies - usually associated with volunteers is the largest group of firefighters in the US. So we are already there in terms of the majority being non-profit, non-government run etities.

Is the author suggesting that perhaps New York, Chicago, LA city and county would be better off as volunteers? Sounds like a great strategy - you go for it - just let me know when you do it so I make sure I don’t visit those cities.

August 27, 2009 Rose, Virginia writes:

That’s cool, because my $50k a year as a Paramedic Firefighter is way too bloated of a salary. Hey, can we privatize teachers too so they make less money?

August 27, 2009 John, New Jersey writes:

As a conservative, I feel really let down by this group. This is the second article in recent weeks published by the Heritage Group attacking my very profession. In America we used to have private, for profit Fire Departments. They were run by the insurance companies. They usually consisted of a pumper and a group of men who would only fight fires at structures they protected. If the house wasn’t on the list, the owner faced a steep charge. This resulted in competition, competition that turned into fights in the streets between opposing fire companies. Companies would hire people to impede to progress of their rivals, in order to get more business from people who were extremely concerned about their wood frame houses in the 19th century. Extremely large fires would simply be left to burn, as a single insurance co. would be unable to handle it with their limited resources. This would carry over to today. Imagine a large, 9/11 type event or another plane incident on the Hudson, requiring multiple, specialized apparatus, the type of vehicles that rarely get used, but are still necessary, I’d be willing to bet that most of these “private” departments would not possess these pieces, since keeping them would not be economical. What would the result be of a nation of privatized fire protection? Chaos. Companies arriving on scene of a major disaster ill equipped to handle them, and unable to work with other units. In the modern world, even considering a “private” fire service is simply irresponsible and unrealistic.

August 27, 2009 Dawn B, Homosassa, FL writes:

I am a former Volunteer Firefighter/EMT from the State of MD. When we as volunteers manned the apparatus to supplement the Paid Personnel that were paid by the County Government, the cost to all people that were transported or treated was 0 dollars. Here in FL, the Fire Department was privatized by the powers that be without any input from the citizenry. In my experience as of 2 years ago as well as from others that have had to utilize the Fire Service EMS services recently, the cost for a basic transport to the Hospital 10 miles away costs in the neighborhood of $500 plus. This cost goes to the individuals private Insurance Company or Medicare. I submit that a educated and hard look be taken at the benefits of a Not for Profit Fire Service vs the For Profit Fire Service; by the way, I might add that all volunteers are required to have the same level of training that Paid Firefighters possess.

August 28, 2009 Rob, Virginia writes:

The fire service of today is not the fire service of yester-year, and people seem to forget that. Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s things like EMS were very foreign to the fire service. Today, Fire and EMS run hand in hand. Those who are in favor of privatizing the Fire service should really evaluate the situation. Most Paramedic Advanced Life Support providers are now college educated with BA degrees in Emergency Medical Services, and the vast majority of persons new to the Fire Service hold BA degrees in Fire Science, Fire Protection, etc. People have forgotten this is not the back yard training of the early years, it’s an accredited and professional job now, and as such the wages should remain competitive and fair for the service and education level being provided. Privatizing the Fire Service would force well qualified and well educated individuals into an underpaid and overworked work environment.

August 28, 2009 Jay, Pennsylvania writes:

Matt Arnold, Alabama I wonder if the increase in the number of prisoners in this country is directly related to increase in the number of privately run prisons? I wonder if their profit margins are determined by the number of prisoners they have? How about alternate sentencing; such as medical treatment for addicts, or community services for non-threatening crimes, instead of throwing everyone in jail so the private industry can make a profit.

August 31, 2009 Rod, Foster City, CA writes:

Your argument rests solely on examples of private companies providing service at a lower competitive cost than available through municipalities. However, as with the financial institutions we taxpayers were recently forced to nationalize, a handful of large health care insurers have concentrated the market over the past ten years by buying out their significant competition.

What free market advocates fail to consider is that free market capitalism depends upon competition. When the competition is eliminated though acquisition and merger, capitalism becomes “Cartel-ism.” The controlling large financial institutions became “too big to fail.” The controlling large health insurers are too powerful, making it economically impractical for private competitors to enter the market.

Government participation in health care is thus likely the only way to reintroduce competitiveness into the health insurance industry. Blind allegiance to rudimentary free market principles that do not account for deliberate creation of corporate cartels leads to meaningless arguments such as yours.

September 1, 2009 Andy, Ohio writes:

Can anyone on this blog provide an example of government services being more efficient than the private sector where the two compete on even ground? The president tried to use the post office but that didn’t go over too well.

September 2, 2009 George, Texas writes:

I bet the author thought Blackwater was a good idea too.

September 3, 2009 Edward, Los Angeles writes:

Wow that is such a great solution. The real way to help improve our services is to make sure that everyone who works in public services is dirt poor with no benefits. That is exactly what I want, to know that my police and firefighters who are risking their life constantly are paid like they are Walmart employees. I know that I like to reward heroic actions with minimal pay, why not treat doctors and nurses the same way?

300,000 for 14 full time and 28 part time firefighters means they are making an average of under 20k for the full time and even less for the part time firefighters. Hell if expenses are in the 300k and not just salaries a lot of these firefighters are making pretty close to minimum wage. To make the math work the full time firefighters need to be making 8 or 9 bucks an hour.

I’d tend to want to reward those who bravely run into gun fire (the military), burning buildings (our firefighters)or dangerous busts (the police). Of course some would rather reward executives to the detriment of those who protect the citizenry (which I consider the most important type of job anyone could hold), I’m just not one of them. I’m all for efficiency and saving money, but not on the backs of those who protect us while we sleep.

September 4, 2009 Brian, Chino Hills, CA writes:

The point made by those who bring up the fire-service is NOT that a privately financed fire-service is bad, but that one that is NOT mandated and governed by an authority OTHER than profit, is not allowed.

Sure, there are private fire departments, but they ALL must deliver their services without a profit incentive. (If it’s burning, we put it out. If you are injured in a car accident, they come to your aid without asking for a deposit.)

So the liberals point is well made. If we, as Americans, allow an entity without profit motive to govern their industry and NOT allow profit to be the only incentive for a fire service (or healthcare) then, you’ve just proven their point.

Good job!

September 8, 2009 LAH, Brookings, OR writes:

This article shows a truly appalling research failure. The city that pioneered fire department privatization, Scottsdale, Arizona, ended its 54 year contract with private fire suppression providers and established its own municipal fire department in 2005.

September 10, 2009 Cary, Tampa FL writes:

Public and private firehouses both work. Public and private schools both work. Public and private hospitals both work. Public and private mail carriers both work. Public and private universities both work. The point, I believe, is that a public insurance option will NOT put private insurers out of business. Chances are, the private insurers will offer options not available under the public option, and lots of people will want those options.

September 10, 2009 Cary, Tampa FL writes:

@Andy — you asked for an example of government services being more efficient. I’d suggest letting the republicans answer that. They claim that a public option would put private insurers out of business, simply because the government can operate at lower cost. When making this argument, Republicans note that Medicare operates at a lower cost (higher efficiency) per patient than do private insurers. Of course, in the next breath Republicans always claim that Medicare is a mess and point to Medicare as an example of why government shouldn’t run health care. Interesting strategy — making two directly conflicting argument using the same underlying facts.

September 10, 2009 Cary, Tampa FL writes:

@Randy Haddock — Congress isn’t going to run fire departments, or health care. Congress doesn’t run the post office, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, or the Military, or the Fed, or public hospitals, or anything else. Congress simply passes laws that call for somebody else to run those things. Blue Cross/Blue Shield runs most of Medicare, with health care professionals in the government (not Congress) providing oversight. That’s why Medicare’s admin costs per patient are lower that private insurers’ admin costs per patient.

September 12, 2009 Anthony, San Francisco CA. writes:

Private fire companies started with Ben Franklin in Phil. Pa. “The Philadelphia Contributorship” The reason for the end of this and begining of public fire departments was these guys were letting homes without protection burn to the ground and literally fighting on the street to see who would be paid to fight the fires. I think we are looking at this wrong…why cant there be a service by private fire companies for all citizens free of cost reimbursed by the government.

Anthony Pelletier
AA Fire Science

September 28, 2009 Objectivism: Selfishness dressed up in it's sunday best - Page 2 - Grasscity.com Forums writes:

[...] service, which is in fact one of the largest private fire protection companies in the world. The Herritage Foundation has recently blogged about private fire departments citing a study conducted by the Reason [...]