Should EMS and rescue respond to Illegal drug overdoses such as Crack, Meth, Heroin?

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:I listen to the scanner and there seems to be a lot of these types of calls. Comments?

Yes.

I got a special bone to pick with drug users. Because of them a lot of the laws law enforcement and the danger of a police state exists....I say send a hearse the following day,

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:I listen to the scanner and there seems to be a lot of these types of calls. Comments?

The medical profession's job is to save lives not judge who's doing illegal acts.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:I listen to the scanner and there seems to be a lot of these types of calls. Comments?

The medical profession's job is to save lives not judge who's doing illegal acts.

Valid Point. Good post

Yes

Yep.

I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

Obviously not in California.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:I listen to the scanner and there seems to be a lot of these types of calls. Comments?

The medical profession's job is to save lives not judge who's doing illegal acts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Good post I agree so ---YES

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

Obviously not in California.

I was talking about Florida.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

Obviously not in California.

I was talking about Florida.

I understand that, but since the thread title does not indicate Florida, I was using EMS collectively. My nephew had an accident a little over 2 years ago, he was at fault. He was transported to WFH by the Escambia EMS. He never even received a bill or any notice from them regarding any charges.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

Obviously not in California.

I was talking about Florida.

I understand that, but since the thread title does not indicate Florida, I was using EMS collectively. My nephew had an accident a little over 2 years ago, he was at fault. He was transported to WFH by the Escambia EMS. He never even received a bill or any notice from them regarding any charges.

That's because it was covered by PIP.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:I listen to the scanner and there seems to be a lot of these types of calls. Comments?

The medical profession's job is to save lives not judge who's doing illegal acts.

They purposely took drugs. LEt them fix themselves.

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's because it was covered by PIP.

I was under the impression that PIP only covered 80% of the amount incurred due to a covered injury. If that is the case that would have left him 20% to pay out of his own pocket, but he never got a bill for anything. Now he did get a bill from WFH, but the invoice did not mention any EMS costs.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I got a special bone to pick with drug users. Because of them a lot of the laws law enforcement and the danger of a police state exists....I say send a hearse the following day,

..................................

Why stop there...?

How about idiots on motorcycles w/out helmets...? I say we don't respond to accidents where the rider isn't wearing a helmet. Send the hearse the next day.

And folk who are climbers...? Screw 'em.....they chose to put themselves in danger. If they fall, too fucking bad. Send a hearse the next day.

Gun range accidents when folk get shot...? Fuck em. Send the hearse the next day.

Single vehicle accidents where excessive speed is the culprit...? OOPS. Send a hearse the next day.


Your over simplification of damned near everything that flows through that trailer park in your head must make you so happy.

What a question. Of course they should respond to illegal drug overdoses. Those people are somebody's brothers, sisters or children. I don't even know if there's any reason to pose the question.

Teo, I'm liking you less every minute. Do you truthfully claim to be a Christian?

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's because it was covered by PIP.

I was under the impression that PIP only covered 80% of the amount incurred due to a covered injury. If that is the case that would have left him 20% to pay out of his own pocket, but he never got a bill for anything. Now he did get a bill from WFH, but the invoice did not mention any EMS costs.

He was lucky. EMS bills everyone else.

EMS services aren't included in the hospital bill. EMS is a totally separate entity.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
That's because it was covered by PIP.

I was under the impression that PIP only covered 80% of the amount incurred due to a covered injury. If that is the case that would have left him 20% to pay out of his own pocket, but he never got a bill for anything. Now he did get a bill from WFH, but the invoice did not mention any EMS costs.

Did he have health insurance? I passed out at a convenience store parking lot many years ago and they called an ambulance. I got a bill of $1500.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:I agree they should respond, but if the response is a direct result of drugs then the patient should be held liable for costs incurred by EMS.

Currently they are saying that the California teen hikers may be held liable for all or part of the rescue costs because drugs were found in their car.

Everyone who is transferred by EMS to a facility incurs the full cost of EMS/ACLS treatment. No exceptions.

Sounds good, but most all drug addicts would have no means to pay for medical treatment.

We don't want dispatchers and medical responders making decisions or diagnosis as to a persons medical condition or cause.

The lady at the Lowe's check out told me some boys had tried to steal a large quantity of Drano from the store Saturday night at closing. They got caught. I asked her why and she said they used it in making meth...Drano ?, really? in your blood stream. They should be allowed to expire and leave the gene pool...IMHO.

Slicef18 wrote:We don't want dispatchers and medical responders making decisions or diagnosis as to a persons medical condition or cause.

Huh? And thus not be able to form a plan of action?

Billy the Kid wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I got a special bone to pick with drug users. Because of them a lot of the laws law enforcement and the danger of a police state exists....I say send a hearse the following day,

..................................

Why stop there...?

How about idiots on motorcycles w/out helmets...? I say we don't respond to accidents where the rider isn't wearing a helmet. Send the hearse the next day.

And folk who are climbers...? Screw 'em.....they chose to put themselves in danger. If they fall, too fucking bad. Send a hearse the next day.

Gun range accidents when folk get shot...? Fuck em. Send the hearse the next day.

Single vehicle accidents where excessive speed is the culprit...? OOPS. Send a hearse the next day.


Your over simplification of damned near everything that flows through that trailer park in your head must make you so happy.

Yeah... Why stop there? You supposedly enlightened progressive liberals talk about all those social issues and how important they are too you. Yet you are more than willing to...

...Allow people who came here illegally a free ticket to head of the line privileges for citizenship while ignoring those that have attempted, and most likely were turned down, any chance at coming here for citizenship because you don't want their kind here...

...Allow people to purchase dangerous items like swords, knives, cars, pressure cookers, etc... without any background checks while demanding that others who haven't hurt anyone to jump through your hoops and be regulated on what firearms they can buy all because of your misplaced paranoia and inability to go after the real cause of the problem...

...Allow marriage rights to a special privileges to a specific minority group while ignoring other mature willing companions who who should be given the same rights to choose how they wish to form a marriage group because you can't stay out of their bedrooms...

Shall I go on with my list?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXkDrZ1z2k