What? Your logic jump left me confused, there. Can you explain why you attribute medical emergencies to a lack of preventative care?

People are still going to break their arms and have strokes and get into car accidents, even with universal medical coverage. Do you have any evidence to think that many of these calls were preventable, other than your own belief?

You're right. There's no hard evidence in the article that supports this assertion. But, how would you explain a 3x increase in medical calls since 1980? You're basically saying we've become three times as accident prone and/or unhealthy and irresponsible. What's the most likely reason do you suppose?

Connecting another dot, what is the impact on the City budget that these health care workers arrive in a fire engine that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars...?

Here's another theory--we've all turned into a bunch of babies who call 911 for a sniffle.

I would interpret this as telling us that our firefighters don't really have enough to do. With modern building codes, fires are exceedingly rare. Our firefighters have essentially become highly paid EMT's.

@Suburban Porn King -

Good question, but be careful - this does NOT show an increase in *total* medical calls since 1980. This only shows that *firetrucks* are answering more medical calls than they used to. It doesn't give us much to understand why. Have ambulance calls decreased, match? Is it just a trade-off?

I think Spartacus has a good point, but I'd guess there's also been some changes in the service agreements. Calls that would have gone to an ambulance in 1980 are going to firetrucks now. Maybe?

What makes a dispatcher call or a firetruck, instead of an ambulance?

I went on a "ride along" with Portland Fire and Rescue a few months ago and at first it struck me that maybe it didn't make sense for a fire crew to show up at every medical emergency. AMR is showing up also. But I spent time thinking about it.... a little bit was all it took.

We're not paying for expensive equipment for medical calls. All we are paying for is the mileage. The equipment exists and is sitting in firehouses all over Portland.

Unless there is any evidence that firefighters respond to fires slower as a result of medical calls let's pay for the mileage to keep our firefighters visible in the public helping Portlanders. It's not too expensive and oh, by the way, it's a visible reminder of how Portland's tax dollars are working for them.

@JesseCornett - Are you saying that we got that equipment for free? Are you saying that an increase in medical responses was never used to justify the purchase of more medical equipment?

That equipment has to be replaced as it wears out. And most of that wear is coming from medical calls, not fire calls!

I think it comes down to logistics. There are fire stations all over the city, needing a relatively small building footprint and little on-site equipment, but the staff is always on-call. By contrast, a hospital is, by necessity, a large facility and there are relatively few.

I'd wager a fire engine costs more to buy than an ambulance, but the wear is largely the same and mostly an issue of vehicle maintenance. It's not like they're buying new fire engines every other year.

All I Wanted Was An Ambulance - Why Did Portland Fire & Rescue Respond?

http://www.portlandonline.com/fire/index.c…

Reymont,

Lack of preventative care leads to medical emergencies because people who should be treated for chronic things like high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity are instead keeling over with heart attacks.