9 ms·

Now imagine for a moment 911 line was a private company. People subscribe to it, pay a monthly fee, call it, wait to get through and don't receive help in time.

by snitko 13y ago

Now imagine for a moment 911 line was a private company. People subscribe to it, pay a monthly fee, call it, wait to get through and don't receive help in time. What do you think people would do then? Stop paying and likely file a lawsuit. Good luck doing this with a government.

loopdoend 13y ago
This would of course tie in with the private police force and private fire service, right? And when the customers stop paying and sue the company into oblivion, who handles the calls? Do you prevent monopolies from forming so no one company becomes responsible for all 911 call traffic? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Let's presume we're interfacing with public services here, just for shits and giggles. What happens when grandma Jean forgets to pay the bill one month? Does she lose access to those public services when she needs them most because her 911 is redirecting to a busy tone?
- barnabask 13y ago
  Here's an example of that kind of situation happening for a fire department in Tennassee: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/04/122193/county-firefighters-subscription/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/04/122193/county-f...
  - loopdoend 13y ago
    That policy is about as backwards and fucked up as the idea of privatizing a 911 service. Those "firefighters" should be ashamed. As a counterpoint, I refer you to all the other counties in the US where receiving this vital service isn't contingent on your bills being paid. I can see these people losing their home to a fire because they failed to acquire home insurance, but I can't see how moral people would stand by and let a house burn to the ground over an unpaid bill.
    - gknoy 13y ago
      I'm not so sure. It makes some sense: Here is a service we are happy to provide, in a sense a form of insurance. The point of it is that the community pitches in, to cover the catastrophic case that we hope no one has. If you decide not to pay into such a cooperative scheme, you're abusing the trust of all of your neighbors if you expect them to save your home anyway. This is part of the reason we often use taxes to cover the cost of things like this. On the other hand, in this case they had already deployed, and it would have been nicer if there had been SOME price that they had thought of as the "fee" for service to non-subscribers. 5k, 10k, etc: better than losing the house. Once you advertise something like that, though, people will stop subscribing, and decide to gamble that they won't have a catastrophe. The price has to either be high enough to discourage that, or high enough that the fire department can cover its operating costs by servicing X fires per year.
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      If you had bothered to read the article, you would have found that the fire fighting service was offered by a neighboring jurisdiction to a jurisdiction that had no fire service of its own. Many rural U.S. counties have no standing fire fighters. Fires are fought by volunteers, often using donated equipment. There is nothing immoral about a town offering enhanced fire service to subscribers outside the town. Similar arrangements are also common between ambulance companies and subscribers. Old people with a fixed income consider it a great deal to pay $50 a year or so for discounted service.
- snitko 13y ago
  1. When people say "but what about monopolies?" they seem to forget that we do currently have a giant monopoly, which is government, that prohibits others from entering the market by force, not just by market instruments such as predatory pricing (although that's the case too, since it is claimed the price of government services is zero). Even if you disagree with me that monopolies historically never remained monopolies for long without government support, wouldn't you at least agree that a private monopoly is still better than government, because I can still stop paying immediately and not expect men in suits from IRS on my doorstep? 2. Proponents of government services always bring up cases where grandmas or disabled or poor people somehow suffer because they don't have enough money/physical abilities/brains to handle things. I agree those cases exists, but it very often is presented as if half of the society is in someway dysfunctional and requires government help (even if that's indeed the case, we should rightly see this situation as abnormal and fix it, not feed it). But the truth is, in a society there's indeed always a % of people who are dysfunctional. My guess is, it should be no more than 5-10%. Those people can be helped by voluntary donations and charities. Beyond that, we got people who made their choices in life (not buying insurance, eating unhealthy, drunk driving etc.). While I'm not necessarily claiming those people should not be helped when they need it, but the decision to help or not should lie with the body that actually does the job: that is, if a drunk uninsured driver is brought to a hospital, it is up to the charity that sponsors it and the hospital managers or doctors to decide whether to help him or not. By leaving this decision up to the government we simply incentivize all sorts of bad behaviors at the expense of people who have no intention of supporting it.
  - loopdoend 13y ago
    1. The government monopoly, as broken as it is, should not discriminate in matters of health and safety, whereas a corporate system that you're proposing would. I am Canadian and am not interested in defending the American system. We have free healthcare (so long as you're a resident paying taxes, and others of course are billed after receiving care). 2. So, in your world, the guy who seemed to have alcohol on his breath can be left to die at a hospital. Sure. I think that's poor example, you'd be hard pressed to find doctors who would refuse to save a life in such a case. The reason I trot out grandma is because it is the poorest and weakest in our society that need protection the most, and your system would leave all that in the hands of some charity... hand-waving away all the issues that creates.
- ams6110 13y ago
  What happens when grandma Jean forgets to pay her phone bill?
  - loopdoend 13y ago
    Hopefully grandma Jean notices her phones don't work prior to the heart-attack.
EdgarVerona 13y ago
You're proposing subscription-based private emergency services?
- ams6110 13y ago
  Why not? Telephone service itself is subscription-based. Nobody is required to have it.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    When telephones were rarer you had public police phones available instead.
bhousel 13y ago
You absolutely can sue the government if their responders fail in their job and someone is hurt or dies. This happens all the time.
- snitko 13y ago
  Can you also stop paying and subscribe to a different service provider?
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Yes. Emigrate and revoke your current citizenship. People do it all the time.
    - snitko 13y ago
      To where? To another country which is going to tax me the same or more?
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        You could try Monaco, though you might not like the fact that they have socialised health care. Those billionaire commies.
        snitko 13y ago
        If there was a 0% tax in Monaco, there would be no way to fund public healthcare. In reality, employers are required to contribute to the CSM (Caisses Sociales de Monaco) for each employee. That's a tax.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Oh, so not just less tax than your current situation, but 0% tax. Well, you could live on a boat in international waters, or renounce the use of all forms of currency and live on pure barter, however you seem to be asking for a state that cannot raise revenue. There are some of them around the world, but you might want to hire a small military detail if you want to live there, as funnily enough they have a few security issues.
bitJericho 13y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0usJCEUgWyM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0usJCEUgWyM
cdcarter 13y ago
Remember, most of the time the 911 caller is not the person needing the service.

by snitko 13y ago

loopdoend 13y ago

This would of course tie in with the private police force and private fire service, right? And when the customers stop paying and sue the company into oblivion, who handles the calls? Do you prevent monopolies from forming so no one company becomes responsible for all 911 call traffic? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Let's presume we're interfacing with public services here, just for shits and giggles. What happens when grandma Jean forgets to pay the bill one month? Does she lose access to those public services when she needs them most because her 911 is redirecting to a busy tone?

barnabask 13y ago
Here's an example of that kind of situation happening for a fire department in Tennassee: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/04/122193/county-firefighters-subscription/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/04/122193/county-f...
- loopdoend 13y ago
  That policy is about as backwards and fucked up as the idea of privatizing a 911 service. Those "firefighters" should be ashamed. As a counterpoint, I refer you to all the other counties in the US where receiving this vital service isn't contingent on your bills being paid. I can see these people losing their home to a fire because they failed to acquire home insurance, but I can't see how moral people would stand by and let a house burn to the ground over an unpaid bill.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    I'm not so sure. It makes some sense: Here is a service we are happy to provide, in a sense a form of insurance. The point of it is that the community pitches in, to cover the catastrophic case that we hope no one has. If you decide not to pay into such a cooperative scheme, you're abusing the trust of all of your neighbors if you expect them to save your home anyway. This is part of the reason we often use taxes to cover the cost of things like this. On the other hand, in this case they had already deployed, and it would have been nicer if there had been SOME price that they had thought of as the "fee" for service to non-subscribers. 5k, 10k, etc: better than losing the house. Once you advertise something like that, though, people will stop subscribing, and decide to gamble that they won't have a catastrophe. The price has to either be high enough to discourage that, or high enough that the fire department can cover its operating costs by servicing X fires per year.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    If you had bothered to read the article, you would have found that the fire fighting service was offered by a neighboring jurisdiction to a jurisdiction that had no fire service of its own. Many rural U.S. counties have no standing fire fighters. Fires are fought by volunteers, often using donated equipment. There is nothing immoral about a town offering enhanced fire service to subscribers outside the town. Similar arrangements are also common between ambulance companies and subscribers. Old people with a fixed income consider it a great deal to pay $50 a year or so for discounted service.
snitko 13y ago
1. When people say "but what about monopolies?" they seem to forget that we do currently have a giant monopoly, which is government, that prohibits others from entering the market by force, not just by market instruments such as predatory pricing (although that's the case too, since it is claimed the price of government services is zero). Even if you disagree with me that monopolies historically never remained monopolies for long without government support, wouldn't you at least agree that a private monopoly is still better than government, because I can still stop paying immediately and not expect men in suits from IRS on my doorstep? 2. Proponents of government services always bring up cases where grandmas or disabled or poor people somehow suffer because they don't have enough money/physical abilities/brains to handle things. I agree those cases exists, but it very often is presented as if half of the society is in someway dysfunctional and requires government help (even if that's indeed the case, we should rightly see this situation as abnormal and fix it, not feed it). But the truth is, in a society there's indeed always a % of people who are dysfunctional. My guess is, it should be no more than 5-10%. Those people can be helped by voluntary donations and charities. Beyond that, we got people who made their choices in life (not buying insurance, eating unhealthy, drunk driving etc.). While I'm not necessarily claiming those people should not be helped when they need it, but the decision to help or not should lie with the body that actually does the job: that is, if a drunk uninsured driver is brought to a hospital, it is up to the charity that sponsors it and the hospital managers or doctors to decide whether to help him or not. By leaving this decision up to the government we simply incentivize all sorts of bad behaviors at the expense of people who have no intention of supporting it.
- loopdoend 13y ago
  1. The government monopoly, as broken as it is, should not discriminate in matters of health and safety, whereas a corporate system that you're proposing would. I am Canadian and am not interested in defending the American system. We have free healthcare (so long as you're a resident paying taxes, and others of course are billed after receiving care). 2. So, in your world, the guy who seemed to have alcohol on his breath can be left to die at a hospital. Sure. I think that's poor example, you'd be hard pressed to find doctors who would refuse to save a life in such a case. The reason I trot out grandma is because it is the poorest and weakest in our society that need protection the most, and your system would leave all that in the hands of some charity... hand-waving away all the issues that creates.
ams6110 13y ago
What happens when grandma Jean forgets to pay her phone bill?
- loopdoend 13y ago
  Hopefully grandma Jean notices her phones don't work prior to the heart-attack.

EdgarVerona 13y ago

You're proposing subscription-based private emergency services?

ams6110 13y ago
Why not? Telephone service itself is subscription-based. Nobody is required to have it.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  When telephones were rarer you had public police phones available instead.

bhousel 13y ago

You absolutely can sue the government if their responders fail in their job and someone is hurt or dies. This happens all the time.

snitko 13y ago
Can you also stop paying and subscribe to a different service provider?
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Yes. Emigrate and revoke your current citizenship. People do it all the time.
  - snitko 13y ago
    To where? To another country which is going to tax me the same or more?
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      You could try Monaco, though you might not like the fact that they have socialised health care. Those billionaire commies.
      - snitko 13y ago
        If there was a 0% tax in Monaco, there would be no way to fund public healthcare. In reality, employers are required to contribute to the CSM (Caisses Sociales de Monaco) for each employee. That's a tax.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Oh, so not just less tax than your current situation, but 0% tax. Well, you could live on a boat in international waters, or renounce the use of all forms of currency and live on pure barter, however you seem to be asking for a state that cannot raise revenue. There are some of them around the world, but you might want to hire a small military detail if you want to live there, as funnily enough they have a few security issues.

bitJericho 13y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0usJCEUgWyM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0usJCEUgWyM

cdcarter 13y ago

Remember, most of the time the 911 caller is not the person needing the service.