Hacker News Reader

Comment by cratermoon | Hacker News Reader

> call-out fee for frivolous calls

Sounds like a typical neoliberal "free market" non-solution.

This snarky reply isn't a rebuttal of any substance. A frivolous call-out fee is a clear and simple solution. If you fix the price then the problem goes away because the incentive for the frivolous call-out no longer exists. It's cheaper for them to hire another staff member than rely on the fire department.

A fee to commercial facilities making frivolous calls could be more reasonable, as they should have competent folks managing things. See my sibling comment regarding fees in general.

No really. Turning a public service into a fee-based means-tested public/private program is the basic neoliberal program. The polices are always put forward with the rubric that the so-called free market is the best way to solve problems of distribution and fairness. To used a tired example, https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/10/11/libertarian-fire-dep...

I'm not disputing that it's a neoliberal solution, I'm disputing the claim that it's a non-solution. If you charge a sufficient amount for frivolous calls from private homes then private homes will stop making frivolous calls.

It's not a solution. The problem is that emergency services aren't always available to those who need them; if you attach the possibility of a fee to the service then you have ensured that problem exists forever.

Many places outside the US have a fee associated with call outs (Australia), not even just frivolous call outs, and there's no issue.

Ah yes Australia, that noted bastion of equality where there is definitely no social underclass.

The problem of availability already exists because emergency services are abused on non-emergencies this stops those abuses freeing it up for real emergencies, no person no-matter how poor is going to balk at using an emergency service on an actual emergency cuz maybe they get charged 5 bucks if its not "emergency enough"

If it's 5 bucks then it's not going to stop care homes calling them either. If you look at the numbers being thrown around in these discussions we're talking about maybe 5k or more, which can definitely be a life-changing amount for a poor person.

Then don't fine poor people. Fine private care homes only as was suggested elsewhere in this thread. In the article it explains that they're only considering a fee for facilities, not for individuals.

> Then don't fine poor people

Means-testing for public services? Please no. Means testing introduces bureaucratic hurdles, and the cost of determining and enforcing means limits can be up to 10x the actual amounts paid out. https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/jan/14/...

I dislike means testing as much as anyone, but a simple test of "are you a private business/facility with more than 1 employee" is one that I could get behind due to its inherently low bureaucratic overhead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com