emtannie Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 It always amuses me how many of you "paramedics" blast the fire service, i'd like to see all of you " Top Notch " medics come down to the states where the service is combined. Unless im mistaken Miami/Dade, St Johns County and several other Florida cities/counties are doing more than most of the country, most of the firefighter/paramedics are the people on the helicopters as well as the local pvt ambulance ( which is a glorified geriatric transport truck ). But yet were firemonkeys, seems to me I work on a rescue in the fire dept, or a "ambulance" for those who are not familiar with our terminology. Those of us who care about our roles in this dual profession dont sit here and whine and complain and think of what negative thing to say to or about all of you who still work in single role depts, whose days are limited, fire/rescue is spreading like a wildfire. It does not matter why, it is happening everyday though. I saw someone post to fire half the firefighters, how about adding rescues and sending them through paramedic school, or doing like many here are doing, making you sign a contract stating you will go with in your first 3 years of service, which has been working to weed out the people who are single minded and think this is still the 80's where we had lots of fire, and medical was separate. Long story short, some of us work dual role, some of us care, just as it is racist to lump a whole race into one foul word, it is the same to lump us together. Boeing, rather than posting a purely emotional response, which was irrelevant to the original post and article, perhaps you could try to justify the actions of the firefighters in the article that Dust posted. Explain to me WHY the FD in this article want to “be exempt from any medical or emergency oversight when they're at a scene.” How does this improve care? How does this further EMS? Explain to me the justification of the following quote from the article: “the intent of the legislation is that we don't need the EMS board in on our discipline. A lot of the firefighters think they treat us like criminals, like we’re always wrong." IMHO, this quote shows the true reason for this legislation – pride, not quality of service, is the priority. So, if you can justify how this legislation in this article improves patient care and improves EMS as a profession, I will discuss this with you. If you want to post an emotional outburst of how “EMS is always hacking fire,” and how amalgamated services are working so well, I am certain that many on this site will be happy to argue that point, and provide statistics and recent articles on areas where it is not working at all. The gross generalization of “come down to the states where the service is combined” is incorrect, as there are many services that are EMS only in the USA. I may be mis-reading that, in that you may have meant “come down to individual states;” however, again, I am sure there are examples even in those states where combines services is not working well. “Those of us who care about our roles in this dual profession dont sit here and whine and complain and think of what negative thing to say to or about all of you who still work in single role depts, whose days are limited….” Wow. That is a completely arrogant and uneducated comment. Combining services does not improve EMS care, it does not improve EMS as a profession. It is a good way for fire departments to increase their call volume figures to justify budgets, as has been shown on numerous threads here. It is exactly comments like that which will draw fire, (no pun intended) because the reasoning for combining services has nothing to do with improving care. Ok, now that I have hijacked my own post, back to my original thoughts: boeing, stick to the thread. If you want to start a thread about how EMS are big meanies and like to hack fire departments, you are welcome to do that. In this thread, we are discussing a specific article, and the negative outcome of this legislation. So, refer to the OP, and post an argument in favor of the legislation if you agree that the FD in this situation is in the right. I will await your reply. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Yeah Annie, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reply. His type is of a common kind...They spend 2-3 minutes on a frantic mental dry hump and then shoot their verbal load all over the thread but run away before the possibility of hearing the pitter patter of the little feet of debate, and the responsibility that that entails.. It's unfortunate that the fire services, of whom we have many members here that I respect very much, is most often represented by 6th grade spelling, grammar and logic. Dwayne 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BushyFromOz Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 His type is of a common kind...They spend 2-3 minutes on a frantic mental dry hump and then shoot their verbal load all over the thread but run away before the possibility of hearing the pitter patter of the little feet of debate, and the responsibility that that entails.. Priceless...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 They spend 2-3 minutes on a frantic mental dry hump and then shoot their verbal load all over the thread but run away before the possibility of hearing the pitter patter of the little feet of debate, and the responsibility that that entails Is that because that is the sum total of their mental concentration & why they feel the need to hold a long, firm hose........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boeingb13 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Boeing, rather than posting a purely emotional response, which was irrelevant to the original post and article, perhaps you could try to justify the actions of the firefighters in the article that Dust posted. Explain to me WHY the FD in this article want to “be exempt from any medical or emergency oversight when they're at a scene.” How does this improve care? How does this further EMS? Explain to me the justification of the following quote from the article: “the intent of the legislation is that we don't need the EMS board in on our discipline. A lot of the firefighters think they treat us like criminals, like we’re always wrong." IMHO, this quote shows the true reason for this legislation – pride, not quality of service, is the priority. So, if you can justify how this legislation in this article improves patient care and improves EMS as a profession, I will discuss this with you. If you want to post an emotional outburst of how “EMS is always hacking fire,” and how amalgamated services are working so well, I am certain that many on this site will be happy to argue that point, and provide statistics and recent articles on areas where it is not working at all. The gross generalization of “come down to the states where the service is combined” is incorrect, as there are many services that are EMS only in the USA. I may be mis-reading that, in that you may have meant “come down to individual states;” however, again, I am sure there are examples even in those states where combines services is not working well. “Those of us who care about our roles in this dual profession dont sit here and whine and complain and think of what negative thing to say to or about all of you who still work in single role depts, whose days are limited….” Wow. That is a completely arrogant and uneducated comment. Combining services does not improve EMS care, it does not improve EMS as a profession. It is a good way for fire departments to increase their call volume figures to justify budgets, as has been shown on numerous threads here. It is exactly comments like that which will draw fire, (no pun intended) because the reasoning for combining services has nothing to do with improving care. Ok, now that I have hijacked my own post, back to my original thoughts: boeing, stick to the thread. If you want to start a thread about how EMS are big meanies and like to hack fire departments, you are welcome to do that. In this thread, we are discussing a specific article, and the negative outcome of this legislation. So, refer to the OP, and post an argument in favor of the legislation if you agree that the FD in this situation is in the right. I will await your reply. Seems odd im asked to stick to the thread yet others sway off to put in their personal opinion, doesn't matter. As far as the thread goes, there is no reason for any service to have a EMS board to follow under and be QA'd under. Every report I write is read by 2 people in our QA dept, our medical director frequently stops by the stations to talk to the people and see where they are in their skills and knowledge. The one thing I have noticed that among all the people who post and post and read every article posted on every ems site, is why do I never hear anyone mention that there are a large majority of dual role dept's where you go either combat or rescue. The days of forcing people on ambulances is coming to an end, what kind of care will you get from someone who hates his job? Why do they want to be exempt?, I would guess because they are not ready to be a true ems provider, doesn't make alot of sense having no checks and balances when lawyers are behind you every move you make. I ask though, how many examples out there of this exact type of incident are out there, where are these incident most commonly located in the country (state). How new are the fire services, are they a volunteer service trying to go paid, were they volunteer fire and paid ems trying to combine into a fire rescue service. It doesn't make sense for them to want to do pt care with no one watching over them, this is 2010 not 1954. I would love to know the history behind this specific dept, and I will try my best to find it. Phil and Dwayne you guys feel free to message me with comments an complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 ...Phil and Dwayne you guys feel free to message me with comments an complaints. No need to PM you man, I'll speak to you here where folks can offer opinions. Too bad you sent the below PM, as I actually agreed with you on some of your points above. I received the following PM today... boeingb13 sent you a new conversation Subject: ? Replies: 0 Sent: Today, 08:49 PM I love how you loud mouth internet tough guys get on here and say what ever you want knowing you can hide behind a name. If your ever in north Florida, look me up. We'll discuss your comments in person. Let me break this down for you sport. Hide behind a name? My name happens to be Dwayne. And I happen to be an EMTP. And you may have noticed that my picture is right there by my name. From your response, can I assume that you're real name is boeingb13? (For the record Hotshot, the grownup world capitalizes names.) Because certainly a man like you wouldn't hide behind a pseudonym (a pseudonym is a pretend name used in the place of a real name)...Or would you? And if you would, wouldn't that then not only make you a coward for making your bullshit threats in private, but also the worst kind of hypocrite? The good news is that you've shown yourself to be the exact kind of ignorant coward that I'd predicted you'd be when I responded to Annie. This isn't 4th grate any more shithead. You need to use logic and intelligent debate to make your points here...No one's afraid of you. Good luck with your EMS endeavors. Dwayne (My real name) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Phil and Dwayne you guys feel free to message me with comments an complaints. why? what needs to be said in a PM that cant be said here? Dwayne, I wasnt fortunate enough to get a PM like you. You are special Phil (also my real name) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 why? what needs to be said in a PM that cant be said here? Dwayne, I wasnt fortunate enough to get a PM like you. You are special Phil (also my real name) boeingb13 Group: EMT City Sponsor Posts: 99 Joined: 27-August 06 Gender:Male Location:Jacksonville Florida Interests:surfing,music Reputation: -7Neutral Sent Today, 07:00 PM That was cute, my info I believe is in my profile, if not i'll post it. Whats the last name, since were not hiding. The tone of your messages is beginning to get really, really unfunny. All future messages will be posted publicly and forwarded to Admin. Any with a threatening tone will be forwarded to law enforcement. You need to think very carefully before you start playing the, "Fuck with me and I'll hunt you down" game shithead. You think I'm froggy online? Give me some reason to think that you're actually stupid enough to show up on my family's doorstep... Fair warning. Dwayne 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 26, 2010 Author Share Posted March 26, 2010 You need to think very carefully before you start playing the, "Fuck with me and I'll hunt you down" game shithead. ^ Seriously not recommended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts