Comments on: Firefighters Seek To Fill The Boot With “Stupid Person” Fees

By: pollypinks

pollypinks — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:15:29 +0000

If people are knowingly doing things that are risky, like white water rafting, then expecting fire fighters to risk their lives to save others is kind of ludicrous. I mean, you know you are doing something dangerous and stupid when you do it. Don’t expect the emergency personnel to die for you just because you don’t give a rat’s ass whether you die or not. Or, floating the Boise River when you’re not supposed to be. That’s another smart move. Or, floating the river with a baby in your arms. Doesn’t get much dumber than that.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:58:46 +0000

Debating on the Internet is pointless. But, you are wrong still.

EDITOR NOTE–Agreed. We will close debate with this post.

By: nan emouse

nan emouse — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:55:27 +0000

Issues? No, those were questions that the insulted Matt could not answer even though he “claims” they were wrong. And not a former employee – a current taxpayer that knows some things that the fire union/department/city would rather keep on the qt.

By: Sardonic

Sardonic — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:52:58 +0000

Wow, nan emouse has some pretty deep issues with firefighters. I’m guessing a disgruntled ex-employee.

I have no problem with the false alarm fees or other “stupid” fees.

I also have no problem paying taxes for everything you just complained about.

Firefighters are there as insurance, and need to be ready to leave immediately. Because unless you have the ability to predict the future, we don’t know when they’ll be needed.

By: nan emouse

nan emouse — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:56:31 +0000

Well Matt, you’ll just have to be insulted. But since you don’t tell me where I’m wrong, then I must be right!

By: Clancy

Clancy — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:19:27 +0000

Sounds like the animosity towards the fireman are about like teachers.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:30:16 +0000

I’m still insulted and you are still wrong on many levels.

By: nan emouse

nan emouse — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:46:45 +0000

Okay Matt. Prove it. If medical calls don’t make up 85% of your workload, what percent are they? Does your union still want to get into the paramedic business?

Also, the fire union’s goal is to maximize wages and benefits and minimize workload. If that’s not true, then why is there bargaining? Last time, what % increase did the fire union ask for, not what they got, but their opening bid? What new benefits did you all get? Actually, what benefits did you give up for the good of the taxpayer? None? Maybe you all don’t love your jobs that much.

Why did you all go to a 48 hour on, I don’t even know how many off? Why didn’t you stay with the 24 on 48 off? Do you all still do personal work in the fire stations? Have you all started to train on Saturdays and Sundays? If not, why not? Why do you all do your grocery shopping on our dime, in our fire truck, using our fuel? Why don’t you all do your grocery shopping on your days off and bring the food to the station like every other employee in this world?

Do Boise taxpayers still pay for your uniform socks? What percentage of your medical premiums do you pay?

Maybe the next time you’re “on duty” you can answer these questions Matt using the taxpayer provided internet access. If you don’t answer, I’ll guess we’ll have to take your being “insulted” with a grain of salt.

By: My Two Cents

My Two Cents — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:24:21 +0000

Charges have been levied inthe past on people who, for instance, drove a car that sparked and started a fire. This is not a new concept of personal responsibility. However, what is idiocy is leaving such a gray area that people will individually determine what is and is not negligent. So if a bicyclist is hurt but was not wearing a helmet, shall we charge them for the rescue? If a person riding in a car was not wearing a seatbelt, then is the rescue operation his or hers to pay for? I agree with Don’t Hate the Player. The concept is sound but the way it’s been done reeks with potential for abuse.

By: Eye on Numbers

Eye on Numbers — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:44:01 +0000

The fire calls I see on TV are brush fires for the most part. The fire guys respond to Paramedic Calls (a redundant cost to taxpayers). Here’s my solution..terminate all the firemen and go to a volunteer FD. Most of the houses and buildings these days simply do not catch on fire. I have never seen a foundation or basement burn to the ground. Smoke and water damage render most structures useless.

How many structure fires do firemen deal with each year? What is the cost benefit to taxpayers? Plenty of people live in homes with no fire departments to protect them and they have been around for years and years.

Fire codes may have rendered firemen a luxury we can now call into question.

EDITOR NOTE– Fire departments are an “insurance policy” for a community and serve a vital purpose. No doubt fire codes and modern building materials have reduced the frequency of fires (sprinklers and smoke detectors are prime reasons). However there are still plenty of old structures and more than enough fires to go around. MOST of the firefighters in the USA are part time or volunteer. How about having volunteer medical responders and river LIFEGUARDS just like ski patrol and much of Australia’s surf lifeguards?