“Just another guy with a blog.  No big whoop.”

February 23, 2010

Tracy (CA) Residents to Pay Big Bucks For 911 Calls

I was born and raised in Southern California and lived most of my life there. I've known for a long time that the state has been run into the ground by the seemingly unending cavalcade of inept and venal politicians who have been running (and ruining) the show there for decades.

I know things in California are going from bad to worse, but I didn't realize it had come to this:

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.

But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.

Or, there's the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

"A $300 fee and you don't even want to be thinking about that when somebody is in need of assistance," said Tracy resident Greg Bidlack.

Residents will soon receive the form in the mail where they'll be able to make their selection. No date has been set for when the charges will go into effect.


  1. Boy, am I sorry to hear this. New York won't be far behind, I'm sure.

  2. By the way, what will they do for those people who can't afford the fee? What about the elderly? I mean, obviously it would be better to pay the $48 up front but what if money is tight? Are they going to deny 911 calls when someone has stroke after stroke and can't pay?


  3. Councilman Michael M. (the guy in the video) better make sure he doesn't need emergency assistance where someone else will have to make the 911 call.

    ...they might think twice before dialing the number. "Do I want to pay for this call?"

    Reminds me Scripture: there was only ONE good Samaritan on the road that day. The rest just walk on pass.

  4. I tried to post a link to a full article about this but it appears it was not approved. I'll try again.


    That's the full story. Nobody gets charged up front. Only charged if and when someone actually provides services. if services are not needed, no charge.

    Seems a decent compromise. If the person's not ACTUALLY having a heart attack, they don't pay. If they are...nobody is going to fret about a $300 bill.

  5. No, it wasn't that it was disapproved, it just never showed up.

  6. Then if somebody's having an actual heart attack they also have to worry about paying the 911 bill then, right?

    As far as services not being needed...who determines that? I mean, I remember calling my HMO about chronic heart burn. They insisted that I go to the ER immediately. Insisted. I knew I wasn't having a heart attack but...I went anyways.

    Now...if someone is concerned that they might be having a heart attack then they call 911. An ambulance shows up...takes the patient to the ER...and then it gets determined that there's nothing more than...heart burn. Acid reflux.

    Services were rendered. Pay up for the 911 call.

    And something else. When my Dad was alive, he and my Mom lived alone in their home. I don't know how many times my Mom had to call 911 because of fears for my Dad. He had countless strokes. $300 per phone call could have made my father refuse the call. He would have died sooner.

    Still sound like a "decent compromise?"