Police and firemen in Alameda, California watched a man drown on Monday after realizing they did not have proper certifications for water rescue, leaving them open to possible lawsuits if they attempted to save him.
The drowning victim, 53-year-old Raymond Zack, was apparently suicidal, according to a report from the scene. He waded out about 150 yards into cold waters off Crown Beach in Alameda and took about an hour to drown himself.
A crowd of about 75 gathered to watch the bizarre scene, which saw police and firemen just standing at shoreline watching helplessly. After the man had drowned, authorities couldn’t even go into the surf to retrieve the body. They instead recruited a passer-by for the job.
City officials reportedly blamed the incident on budget cuts and said they would have a discussion about why Alameda, an island city, does not have proper authorization to rescue people from the waters surrounding it.
This video is from ABC 7 in San Francisco, Calif., broadcast May 30, 2011.
Here's the real headline: Government bureaucrats allow their customer to die.
Fire and rescue services can and should be privatized. There are many private rescue / ambulance services in the country and even some private fire services.
As a general rule, they do twice as good a job (using very measurable statistics) at half the cost of government services. In other words, they are 4 times better. Same with trash collection.
There is no reason whatsoever for the government to monopolize these things. Doing so puts us all at risk.
Fire and rescue services can and should be privatized. There are many private rescue / ambulance services in the country and even some private fire services.
Right, and folks should have to pay if they want service. Remember that house that was allowed to burn down because the guy hadn't paid his dues? That's the kind of country we should strive to live in.
Collapse in the street, haven't paid your fire/rescue dues, tough luck. Just carry the leeches out to the trash.
Show up at an emergency room. Aren't insured? Too bad, go out on the street.
Elderly and can't afford you care? Life sucks, and it's time for you to die.
Have a child with severe birth defects that you can't afford to care for? Sucks to be you, put them out in the trash.
That, my friends is the conservative vision for america.
Were huge numbers of old people dying in the streets before Medicare and Medicaid? No they weren't.
Were people's houses just allowed to burn down when virtually all fire departments were voluntary fire departments? No they weren't.
Your version of America is akin to an incompetent version of the SOVIET Union where...
15 government bureacrats get to make life and death decisions for all 310 million of us.
Government bureacrats get to keep lifelong jobs even though they are destroying our kid's futures in the government monopoly schools.
On and on...
No thanks.
In a free society, the overwhelming majority of people will take responsibility for themselves and their family members. Government has destroyed that. It has to be restored -- not by government force and not by government incentive programs. Rather by eliminating most of the government and allowing people to regain their sense of humanity.
I guess your ideal version of the USA is Somalia - no govt and no gun control.
Jwpegler seems to get confused a lot, a few weeks ago he touted the superiority of Germany's approach to dealing with the economy and he's often touted Singapore's universal healthcare program as one the U.S. should emulate. He also praises countries who spend lots of government money on mass transit.
he's often touted Singapore's universal healthcare program as one the U.S. should emulate
I stand by that assertion today. 100%
Singapore's health care system promotes individual choice and responsibility. The U.S. system promotes dependency on one's employer and/or the government. This is the problem.
Singapore's health care system promotes individual choice and responsibility. The U.S. system promotes dependency on one's employer and/or the government. This is the problem.
Singapore has a universal healthcare system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care.
--------
Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized catastrophic health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check;
So mandates are a good idea? Government forcing citizens to save and providing subsidies along with price regulation are good approaches?
I thought you were a free market conservative, not a socialist?
I've told you by detailed opinion on this dozens of times before.
Right, you have repeatedly proclaimed your support for a system that "uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized catastrophic health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check;"
I've also repeatedly told your that your characterization of the Singapore system is completely incorrect.
I've been to Singapore many times. The American leftist interpretation is completely wrong.
There are more than two answers to any question and they found one that works really well.
Their solution has NOTHING to do with whatever you and other brain dead leftist could even conceive.
Who invented Singapore's health care system? A professor at Texas A&M university, in the 1970s.
Who invented the Japanese manufacturing method? An American who was rejected by the status quo, after WWII in the 1940s.
America has the smartest people on the entire earth. America also has the very dumbest government on the entire earth. The government cannot be trusted to do anything.
I think the book explains CLEARLY what is going on today as if she were here right now.
There are many areas where I do NOT agree with Rand, including her atheism (while I wholehearted agree with her position on organized religion).
I don't see her as a deity. I liked the book.
But I can tell you right now that accusing someone who recommends the book of thinking Rand a deity, is a tactic used by the collectivists to try to discredit the book, by attempting to brand that person as some type of "cultist".
It is a book which exposes them, and their tactics, and they don't like that.
