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;"
The Singapore government MANDATES that everyone have health care coverage AND it guarantees that a payment, private, public or a combination of both, will be made to ALL providers.
All "private" health care providers cannot reject an applicant and it cannot deny a treatment.
#148. To: war, go65, capitalist eric (#146)(Edited)
The Singapore government MANDATES that everyone have health care coverage AND it guarantees that a payment, private, public or a combination of both, will be made to ALL providers.
Singapore mandates that everyone save for their own healthcare. You get to SHOP for your own insurance out of your savings. Government doesn't own you insurance. Employers don't own your insurance. YOU own your own insurance. THIS IS THE KEY to their success.
They provide a tiny savings subsidy for low income people, who also get to SHOP for their own insurance.
Philosophically, I would prefer no government mandates at all, but given where we are I would support the Singapore system in the U.S. 100%.
Let me inform you about Singapore and the rest of Asia.
You are expected to take care of yourself. If you can't take care of yourself, your family is expected to take care of you. If don't have a family, then the government might provide you a tiny subsidy, depending on the specific country.
In Asia, "family" means extended family and close friends of the family, just like southern Europe.
We've lost this entire idea of family in America and Europe. That is precisely the problem.
It wasn't by accident. The government has purposefully taken over more and more family responsibilities over the last 100 years. This is why things are so screwed up in Europe and America. It has to change.
You are expected to take care of yourself. If you can't take care of yourself, your family is expected to take care of you. If don't have a family, then the government might provide you a tiny subsidy, depending on the specific country.
In Asia, "family" means extended family and close friends of the family, just like southern Europe.
We've lost this entire idea of family in America and Europe. That is precisely the problem.
It wasn't by accident. The government has purposefully taken over more and more family responsibilities over the last 100 years. This is why things are so screwed up in Europe and America. It has to change.
You got that right.... and it wasn't that awful far in our past that family was an important thing..... When I was a little kid we used to have family reunions in Troy, Ohio once a year..... Everybody in the whole family would show up, right around 75 people... If somebody was of ill health or too old to drive then somebody would go pick them up and bring them. It was an all day event and everybody celebrated their birthdays on that day too.... Plenty of games, food, drink, gifts and "Especially family"...... Now... well I don't think there has been a reunion in the last 10 years......
Health care accounts for nearly 20% of GDP. If per capita income is ~$45K and take home is ~$37K, there is absolutely no way that anyone could "chip in" the $80k a year needed to properly take care of an elderly person.
We just tried to do it with my Mom with 4 of us and we lasted about 6MOS before we all realized that we were headed to bankruptcy. Both of you have absolutely no idea what it takes to administer to the infirm.
In the "good old days" you threw them in a bed and kept them comfortable.
We just tried to do it with my Mom with 4 of us and we lasted about 6MOS before we all realized that we were headed to bankruptcy. Both of you have absolutely no idea what it takes to administer to the infirm.
Amen to that!
Both my mother and father required care in the last years of their lives. For 4 years that was my life. It is impossible to do it without help and that help is expensive. Even with SS and Medicare the out of pocket expenses are considerable; without that, it would have been impossible.
