This assessment is being put to the voters, due to a long-term issue that has plagued our fire district for decades. When Prop 13 was passed in 1978, the apportionments of taxes were allocated for levels of services at that point in time. Since East County was mostly rural, a very small proportion of our taxes were directed to the fire district.
Currently, East County has matured into a suburban/urban area, home to many families, commuters and new businesses. We have outgrown what was deemed to be adequate emergency services, which were fit for a rural community over three decades ago. The district has been underfunded for years and the reserve account has been exhausted.
We have seen our district struggle for many years, recently moving to local control but without any increased funding. Control of the district was transferred to a local board so it would be clear that necessary funding would remain local. With the lack of revenue, our firefighters have been responsible by doing more with less, but even that has not been enough.
Financial reserves have been spent down, and most recently several of our local fire stations had to be closed and remain shut. Without an immediate change in revenue, more remaining firehouses will be closed and the entire district would be cut to only three fire stations serving over 250 square miles.
In this very possible scenario, many communities will be without fire stations, fire engines or firefighters. This level of service would be completely unacceptable. When a major emergency occurs, all of our resources would be deployed, leaving the remaining communities vulnerable until engines from other agencies can backfill stations and assist with any other emergencies.
While fire department staffing varies slightly from agency to agency, the industry standard is the staffing of three firefighters per engine (often one of them trained as a paramedic). Having a paramedic with advanced life-saving skills first on scene can mean the difference between life and death. Further, OSHA standards mandate that a minimum of four firefighters must be on scene to enter a burning structure.
In far East County our fire district has been severely understaffed and unable to offer paramedic/advanced life support, first-responder services to the citizens that it serves.
Simply put, we would have only three fire stations to cover all emergencies in the district, which includes Brentwood, Oakley, Discovery Bay, Byron, Bethel Island, Knightsen and Morgan Territory. This is not a scare tactic, but is the reality facing every citizen served by the fire district.
The district does not have a spending problem – it has a revenue problem. Due to the nature of emergency response, it is equally as important to look at the district as a whole and not as a service to any one community. One structure fire, one large grass fire, one multi-casualty incident or one multi-vehicle accident will instantly deplete the resources from all the firehouses.
If we as citizens take ownership of our fire district and pass this measure, we will begin the recovery of our emergency services to a level that many expect when they are injured or are in need of fire suppression. As a community, we need to insure our safety and that of our firefighters.
Don’t be misled by arguments that are inaccurate or focused solely on anti-tax measures. If our emergency services diminish, we will likely see greater increases in insurance rates offsetting any “savings.” Measure S insures that we will have the fastest and best possible emergency care available.
We have an opportunity to save our fire district and begin implementing fire services that we can all be proud of and stand behind. As a community, the ultimate priority is public safety. Please join us in supporting Measure S.
No title
Posted on another forum
May 22, 2012 at 9:21 am
Bob says:
It should be noted that the CCTimes is so tight with CoCoTax that some of their editorial pieces are for all intents and purposes, ghost written by CoCoTax representatives.
In fact, in their public arguments they insist you cannot afford $16/mo to maintain your fire services. But they fully expect that you can spend $25 or $30 monthly for their breakfast or luncheon meetings to hear their message.
Can any of their representatives explain that contradiction? In the past the defense has been it costs money to put on a spread at a luncheon. Well then why not hold it at a community center and have volunteers bring refreshments? Other social groups do that every given day.
Seems the cost savings message at CoCotTax comes up a little short on consistency.
As Vince notes, this just a wedge issues to force pension concessions in the most reckless manner possible. People will die in CoCoTax’s campaign to push that agenda and that is criminal.
Really Bob? "CoCoTax's campaign...is criminal" ??
That's a little bit strong, isn't it Bob?
Clearly it is a sign of desperation on the part of Measure S supporters.
Let's Vote No on $$$ and insist on an actual solution to the problem not just kick the can down the road.
The so called union bashing has been brought on by no other than your union at the expense of my limited dollars. This commentary is written by a union firefighter and husband of a County Supervisor. You can easily figure out why this new tax would be taking our money just to benefit the union influence. It's like they are stealing my income with brainwashing voters with scare tactics. NO, I'm not going to give them any more of my grocery money than they already have spent away and not told us.
Yes, I know times have changed but this is a diverse county with a mix of population centers/population types and for sure this is a county up against the financial wall.
A lot has changed in certain parts of the county but not a whole lot has changed in other parts.
Why does your union fight so hard to avoid the exact program that brought you into this job?
To me it seems like an extremely logical way (and very traditional way that works all over this country) to feed the system for future full-timers and at the same time putting that needed extra person (or two) on the engine or being the difference between a closed station and an open station.
I really would like a serious answer from you or somebody with actual knowledge of why the union officials & bosses want to keep people like yourself away.
You are not the only one that will have a difficult time paying a new tax, some of us have lost income during this economic downturn, it's about priorities. If you put a value on high quality Fire/Paramedic service like I do you will vote yes on Measure S. If you choose to rely on a reduced number of available firefighters and AMR for Advanced Life Support because of the cost, that is your choice and you will vote no.
What bothers me is that you want to blame the union for your choice when they are not the bringing this measure to the voters. I am a business owner not a union member and I’m in favor of Measure S. I will most likely need to do without something else to pay for the $197 tax if it passes, but I will do it gladly to know that when I need help and I call 911 someone will come to help.
We all make choices for our own personal reasons which are your right, my hope is that every vote that is cast will be an informed one. Do your home work as I have done and share that information as you see fit, but making claims that are not supported by facts are misleading for those voters who have not decided.
In closing the Fire district has already survived a 7.0 earthquake. Fact check!
“ The Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, 1989 at 5:04 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. It had a moment magnitude of 6.9 and a surface wave magnitude of 7.1. The duration was 15 to 20 seconds.” And the link to support my claim http://www.vibrationdata.com/earthquakes/lomaprieta.htm
It seems you have not researched far enough by the display of examples. Yes, we did survive the earthquake, that's not the issue. The issue is it was done without increased taxes. It will be done next time too with or without a new tax.
I put a value on all emergency services. In this case we would be throwing good money in to a deep pit. I do not have the extra money to waste on a plan is not sacred to how well the extra money is spent.
Other options have been available but not used because of the union. No, this is not a union measure is ridiculous because today's paper says there will be forum on in Martinez on May 3. Who is representing the measure in favor? Yes , you guessed it, the Union representative. Who is opposed ? Yes, the Contra Costa Tax Payers Association. Your AMR comment is another reason you need to do more research. We already pay for and have not only ambulances but special paramedic fast response vehicles.
They need to come up with a better plan that is not so wasteful and only benefits the union.
I have some cost cutting ideas;
How about line staff take a permanent 10% pay cut and management take a 15% pay cut. All employees agree to an 80/20% employer/employee funded health benefit package. No more employer funded HMO's, go with an employee funded Kaiser HSA plan. No more employer funded retiree health benefits. Cut out 2/3 of the take home vehicles. Restructure the new hire retirement plan, etc...
If the firefighter staff really cares about the community then they will proudly take the cuts like the rest of us folks before they ask for more money. I have faith that life will go on after Measure S fails, it always does...
You must be living in a dream world if you think that three QRV's can get to all the medical calls in the district in 2-5 minutes, really!! Just exactly how does that work in a District that covers 250 square miles? I don't need medical training to tell me that that is impossible. My understanding is there is one QRV at Station 52 on Balfour road, one in Discovery Bay at Bixler and one on Bethel Island. Maybe you could share with us non medically trained in this district how a QRV from station 52 can get to Marsh Creek road and Morgan Territory road in 2-5 minutes, that's a physical not a medical impossibility. Just to complete the scenario, the call was for a auto accident, auto 1 turning left onto Marsh Creek Road from Morgan Territory road and east bound truck on Marsh Creek impacts divers door. Your example would be single paramedic arrives on scene in 2-5 min. followed shortly by an ambulance with one EMT and one paramedic. Once on scene they (AMR) realize that the impact crushed the driver’s door in 12” and the driver is pinned by the steering column and now (AMR) waits for a fire truck with extrication equipment to arrive from the nearest station.
Where is the nearest station?
1) Is it the Cal fire Sunshine station? No On S may have that station closed during the non fire season.
2) Maybe Station 52 on Balfour? No on S will most likely close one of the Brentwood stations, maybe 52 and when that happens the QRV would be coming from 54, downtown Brentwood adding 10 minutes to the response time to this scenario.
3) From the Clayton ConFire station? Maybe if it has not been moved to cover for one of the possible eight station closures if the Central County Con Fire Ballot measure fails in November.
My point is it takes both fire and paramedic personal to facilitate many of the non fire calls. If Measure S fails there will be half as many Firefighters available for emergencies. If you call this a scare tactic I invite you to the ECCFPD Board meeting on May 7th, the agenda will most likely have a presentation of the service model options if Measure S fails. The service model will need to include new protocols for how to prioritize calls for service, with half the stations open not all calls will get top priority. I hope you can attend and share your plan with the public in person.
I don’t expect you to vote yes on S, but giving false hope to undecided residents and making claims without the complete information is just irresponsible.
It seems that this is the main "go to" talking point in support of big red trucks rather than qrvs responding to all medical calls. That, and some notion that the big red trucks move more quickly than the QRVs to reach the scene.
I don't recall this concern being raised by the district when they closed two of the three stations in the Discovery Bay/Byron community last year. Is this a new phenomenon?
I don't recall the district committing to reopen either of these two stations even if the tax passes. In fact, when asked, it seemed the Chief was pretty firm that those stations would not be reopened ever.
A 7.0 earthquake happens, where is the closest station? It really doesn't matter because one or seven engines will not make any difference. What you need to ask yourself Mr. sbarr is why you are wanting more money for a paramedic only to dump a QRV that we already pay for? The answer I come to is the union wants and needs are more important than my savings account. The county has a billion dollar budget, messes up our fire district and asks us for more money for what the union wants. Nope, can't do, will not do, my last dollars are precious to my food and shelter before the union.
You are correct, 3 QRV's can't handle all the medicals in the ECCFPD domain. That's why the ambulance provider also staffs ambulance stations 24/7 and has multiple day car and night car units driving around on the streets 24/7 as well. Everyone always being strategically placed equal distances from each other, so that if one unit gets a call others may rearrange so no area is ever left uncovered, something called "system status management." This all still happening even with no measure S.
Even if I could attend the board meeting, what would be the point? Nothing I say or present is going to change anything. The board has had this set in their minds and it's not like me going in there is going to make them suddenly yank measure S and look at alternatives.
Lastly, excuse me but I am not giving anyone any false hope. I am presenting the facts that I am able provide based on years of experience and professional knowledge gained. I personally find it scandalous the way I have seen yourself and others use such a play on words to make the general public think, and fear, that without fire department coverage and paramedics they will face certain death, the whole time making absolutely no mention of all the other resources out there that have always, and will continue to respond, and with additionally without any medical knowledge, research or statistical evidence to back it up.
MillieP, it seemed like from your post you think you are already paying for QRV paramedics. You actually aren't paying anything at all for them. They are provided by the ambulance provider (AMR) completely free of charge as a condition of the 911 ambulance provider contract. Here in Contra Costa you only get a bill if the ambulance actually transports you, there is no charge for them to just show up. As the QRV never transports you never will get a bill for them (not even their supplies, as the ambulance bill is a flat rate with added expense for mileage only).
Being that even with this tax the ambulance transport still remains separate from the fire department and all the fire department paramedic does is replace the QRV, not the ambulance or their more experienced and expanded paramedic, this tax will just be removing something you are getting for free now and making you pay for it.
Today's interesting article in this paper on the history of east county fire departments clearly showed that as conditions and situations change so to must the ways fire/EMS services are delivered. Now we as voters must push for a significant change that is overdue.
Adding a new tax that does not fix the ECCFPD's economic sustainability problem(s) is not the answer.
More than two years ago the new fire board and the BOS was called on to look beyond just sucking up more tax dollars, they were asked to, but refused to, consider alternatives including constructing a brand new Fire – EMS entity comprised of select elements of the existing three entities (Con Fire, ECCFPD & County EMS). To do this successfully the wage/benefit program would need to be completely revised and tiered. The unions will go crazy over this but the FACT is the pension programs have gotten out of control and this new tax will actually make that critical situation worse.
As everyone knows most FD calls are medical so the concept of a new all encompassing FD logically puts (leverages) all EMS under the same direct management/accountability umbrella and at the same time fully utilizes management, support staff, equipment, special equipment (like aerial ladder trucks), POC and training across a larger user base. It should be an objective to virtually eliminate the in-house county EMS admin staff and overhead (like other counties have done). Lets put all that redundancy savings into direct (on the street) staffing that, on day one, will improve public safety.
I am under no delusion that crating a new three-into-one FD/EMS entity would be easy but easy is for simple problems and this is not a simple problem. And I do understand that revenue still might be a problem even after creating a new entity….that possible problem can be addressed at the proper time (a bridge loan by the county could be an interim solution).
And to repeat my key point….I do not support simply absorbing ECCFPD into Con Fire. That will not work and would make the situation worse. What I have proposed is a complete revision of the county's entire fire and EMS function that will deliver ONE brand new highly leveraged entity with a wage, benefit and overhead structure that is much lower, county wide, than exists today. Most of the present employees would be offered employment but no doubt some jobs will be lost. That is what happens when you leverage to save resources and when you cut out county administrative functions. Most importantly the burden on the tax payers of this county will be decreased at the same time the stability of fire/EMS jobs will be increased. I believe this plan would, over the long haul and across the broad population, improve public safety.
What I propose will be hard for the politicos to step-up to and the fire employees presently paid at the higher end of the scale will hate it and some of those would be expected to quit, others might quit as well; attrition is part of any reorganization. This is the only comprehensive fix I know of for this long entrenched out of control situation. Otherwise we keep taxing everyone to death (even beyond the proposed new taxes) so that this one particular job can keep a pay-benefit plan that is totally unsustainable in the 'new normal' economic conditions we live in and we will continue to live in.
This can't be made to be about having sympathy for fire department/EMS workers who help us on our worst day or the immense pressure/influence unions exert on elected officials....this has to for once be about making proper long-term economic decisions that fit the new normal situation we live in. Anyone would be hard pressed to argue that county government did not let pension liabilities get out of control. Now is the time to add stability and fix the overall situation. It will be hard, it will suck but it has to be done or the spiral into total economic collapse will continue. And if that happens the risk to pubic safety will be outrageous.
To be clear....under my recommendation for a brand NEW fire/EMS department not every address served will be offered the identical level of service (just like today). In a diverse county under economic pressure there will have to be several service models and several ways service is deployed. I would expect most to see little change but I would expect some address, especially rural ones, to see significant changes. I would also expect crew sizes to vary, outside vendors to be used where needed and methods/models not currently utilized to be brought on-line. Not every vehicle will get replaced right on time and not every vehicle/uniform will match...sorry. It works in other places so it can work in CCC as well. These measures and increasing long-term stability of the fire/EMS jobs will improve public safety across the entire county.
One last thought…..for those who say the county can't put any of their discretionary funds into fire/EMS I say BS. If they can spend money on soda pop abatement they can spend money on fire/EMS (especially EMS which makes up the vast majority of all FD calls). Right now I call on every supervisor to cut their district's cost center overhead by 50% and put that money directly to fire/EMS. I bet if we put this concept to the voters it would pass by a resounding margin. No more multiple offices...if they want to meet locally with constituents they can meet at a very local library or fire station. But who am I kidding, these are the same people who have dodged this critical issue for years while building their own fiefdoms. If anyone has a problem with public safety being in jeopardy these are folks to hold accountable.
To say that the validity of my proposal for a NEW all encompassing fire/EMS entity comes down to full implementation by July is absurd and you know it. It is a perfect example of special interest tried-&-true manipulation of common sense. It makes you and your cohorts look bad to rely on that kind of illogical rhetoric. The 'sky is falling' argument is a pure cover up and one more effort to protect a comp program that is not sustainable in this county even with the proposed new taxes. If the sky falls it is not the fault of the voters it is the fault of the special interests and the fire boards.
Fact...both county FD's have long been troubled and the proposed new taxes will not really fix the fundamental issues. Just layering on new tax is not the answer.
Fact…if the ECCFPDB and the BOS would not have had tunnel vision two years ago my proposal or some facsimile there of could be well into implementation.
Fact…proponents of the status quo never actually address the NEW fire/EMS entity concept…all they do is obfuscate and manipulate.
Fact…the county (read BOS) that does have responsibility for these FD's could provide some form of interim funding/financing as they have done for other county special districts.
Fact…many CA counties have already taken steps to eliminate/minimize overhead spending for EMS administration and put that savings on the street.
Fact…the continued reference to Morgan Territory (or other truly rural areas) is irrelevant. What happens there can not be straight line extrapolated to the suburban areas of the county that make up almost all of the population/voters.
Fact…the BOS could today begin action toward delivering fire/EMS services to this county in a way that meets today's economic environment.
Fact…based on the lack of meaningful action to date the politicos will likely not act until forced by the public. Voting NO for this new tax is the only leverage the public has left.
Fire Districts are funded by property taxes. As we are all painfully aware, property values have fallen significantly, and along with them the revenues received by the Fire Districts from those taxes. Fire agencies in most areas are cutting, and have been cutting for the past several years. Wages and benefits, layoffs, nonessential services ect. The fact is, the next step is to close Fire houses. The fallback argument that the next agency will send engines to support you, is a fallacy, they're in the same position of closing stations and will not have them to send.
If you live in the affected area of Measure S...Before you vote, consider this...1. How much have my property taxes gone down in the past few years...2. How much will my home owners insurance premium go up if it fails...3. Is it possible that 5 minute could make a difference...4. How much do I spend at the drive through at starbucks a year...
Obviously you have no children, have no one in your family that will ever get in an accident, or have a heart attack.....and you yourself are immuned to the possibilty of ever needing assistance from the underpaid and underappreciated members of the East Contra Costa Fire Service. What an awesome feeling that must be. I however am terrified of the fact that what would have normally been a 5 minute response to the medical emergency or the fire in my house will now increase to 20 minutes. Turning what would once have been a transport in an ambulance to a coroners case or a home repair to a total loss. The fact is, 3 fire stations and half the personel will be gone as of July 1. This is not a "maybe" or " an off chance", it is a fact. It will happen. Again I am glad you have the confidence of knowing your house will never catch on fire and no one you know will never require medical assistance. It is unfortunate however that you will never have to look at the faces of the firefighters that will no longer have a paycheck to support their family or look into the eyes of the wife and child whose husband/father didn't come home because no one was in the burning building with him due to the lack of resources. Measure S will cost the taxpayers $16.42 a month. It saddens me to read that the livelihood of the firefighters and the lives of the citizens they protect is not worth the monthly cost of 3 lattes. One piece of advise, perhaps you should read what the measure represents before making uneducated, dangerous statements.
To begin: All the cities affected by this coverage needed to then, and still now require new structures or renovations to have fire sprinklers installed to save lives and property.(extinguishes fires in under 5 minutes)
Next all firefighters need to be paramedics, make this a requirement for all departments.
Have a group of volunteers certified by OSHA so they can respond to any fire engine and meet the requirement of 4 personnel on site.
ins COULD go up.
Delays Will be longer.
People COULD be more careful.
Accidents Could go up.
The Fire budget COULD be back for more funds.
The elected Could repeal prop 13.
The district COULD get sued more.
The COULD senarios are never ending.
Let's all see what the next chapter holds for all of us citizens and Tax-Payers.
1) This article fails to mention that there is already substantial and adequate paramedic service and coverage provided to all east county residents. Paramedics have been available and provided through the ambulance provider, American Medical Response (AMR), for years and will continue to be provided regardless of the outcome on this tax.
Every single ambulance has at least one paramedic and EMT, with quite a few ambulances staffed with two paramedics. Also, AMR already provides "first responder" paramedics staffed at in their own vehicles at fire stations throughout east county, so having first responder paramedics is not dependent on this tax.
When it comes down to a medical or traumatic emergency you have to ask yourself, how are you going to get to the hospital anyways and who is going to providing you treatment throughout transport, the ambulance, not the fire engine, and this tax has no bearing at all on the ambulance and paramedic service that people are already being provided.
2) Gary, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not by your comment, "Next all firefighters need to be paramedics, make this a requirement for all departments", but I think you were serious.
I know many here probably aren't medical providers or involved in the medical community, but an increasing number of studies being performed in EMS systems throughout the nation (and actually the world) are showing this to actually be a very bad idea. The reasons are numerous but some simple ones are that this causes a significant dilution in said skill sets, gained knowledge and experience, of those paramedics in the EMS system, basically creating a lot of paramedics in the system but all of them sucking (lack of clinical knowledge and skill experience and performance).
There is also a "too many cooks in the kitchen" effect which is detrimental to patient care. Tiered response is actually being shown by evidenced based medicine research to be more beneficial.
If Measure S fails and three fire stations close how will AMR handle the extra calls currently being handled exclusively by the fire department, remember that over 80% of the calls for service are medical. Anyone that knows anything about contracts knows that if half of the fire stations close AMR will be asking for more money to cover the change in service demand.
The harsh reality is if the AMR paramedic arrives on scene in 10-18mins in most cases you would only need transport, it would be too late for a paramedic to help.
In reply to your post I have to ask if you have any medical expertise or knowledge at all? Are you even aware how an EMS system works, even the one here in Contra Costa County?
First of all, just saying paramedics for east county were an add on is misleading. Paramedics have been on the ambulance for a long time and will continue to be on the ambulance, that is not an add on. The first responder paramedics, known as QRV's (quick response vehicles) stationed at the fire stations are a requirement of the contract, not just some "add on". Yes, it is up to the board of supervisors to ensure that they remain a condition of future ambulance provider contracts but just as so many are speculating that insurance rates will increase without this tax, I speculate just as strongly and would bet money that as long as the fire department does not have "first responder" paramedics you will see this contract requirement remain.
As a result, we would continue to receive "first responder" paramedics at no charge. I say no charge, because as a lot probably don't realize, you only get a bill from the ambulance company when they transport you. Having the QRV show up on scene costs nothing! You aren't even paying for it in your taxes right now! Also it doesn't matter who the company is that contracts with the county, the conditions would remain the same. I don't know why you think AMR no longer being in Alameda county has any bearing on this.
This brings me into the next point you brought up, the cost of the ambulance transport. Hello?!?! That is going to remain whether this tax passes or not, the fire department does not provide ambulance transport and this tax is not going to change that! Did you think this tax meant they will now provide the ambulance or ride with you to the hospital? Complaining about ambulance transport costs is pointless, as the fire department paramedics aren't going to change that one bit. The ambulance still is staffed with their paramedic and no matter who gets on scene first, they ultimately take on full patient care treatment and responsibility with the fire department paramedic leaving the patient to hop back onto their fire engine (just as the QRV system is designed now), as the ambulance paramedic provides care and treatment during transport to the hospital, hence you will still get the bill (but now you will also be paying a higher property tax as well).
You also mention the ambulance having longer response times and this being a reason to have fire department paramedics. In some cases (not all) the fire department arrives before the ambulance, however in others the ambulance arrives first. Sometimes both get their at the same time. What you neglect to mention is that in those cases the ambulance did take 8-10 minutes, how long did it take for the QRV to arrive? I would bet they were right there in the 3-5 minute window with the fire engine, and I don't even have to pay for that.
You said, "the difference is CPR being performed from 3:17-8:00 minutes, real life example of no vote on “S” equals no firefighter on scene at 3:17 and patient waiting for AMR unconscious for 8 minutes….not a positive outcome."
Some information for you, and everyone else as well. CPR is a basic life support skill. Every single firefighter is an EMT and is trained in CPR, they even have AED's. Just because these firefighters are not paramedics does not mean that they are not able to do anything for a cardiac arrest patient or any other call. In fact, studies have now shown the most effective, life-saving treatment in a cardiac arrest patient is good, high quality CPR and timely defibrillation, both of which can be performed by a lay person, you don't even have to be a fancy EMT or paramedic to do those things. On other calls there is much to be done in the first 5-10 minutes anyways that all fall under basic life support (BLS), which the fire department already provides. Rarely is advanced life support (ALS) care even even initiated before this as there are so many basic life support things to get done first. Medicine has an old but true mantra for any treatment modality, "BLS before ALS".
"If Measure S fails and three fire stations close how will AMR handle the extra calls currently being handled exclusively by the fire department, remember that over 80% of the calls for service are medical."
This statement makes no sense at all. How will AMR handle all the medical calls they are already handling and have been handling for the past 15 years? There won't be any "extra" medical calls that the fire department handles "exclusively", AMR already responds to and covers all these calls as it is. Measure S failing won't change ambulance or QRV response one bit. If measure S fails people will still have first responder paramedics provided by the QRV's and they will still have all the same ambulances with paramedics on board every one of them.
"The harsh reality is if the AMR paramedic arrives on scene in 10-18mins in most cases you would only need transport, it would be too late for a paramedic to help."
Don't forget the QRV would probably be there in 2-5 minutes and rarely is an ambulance that long, but it sure does make a nice scare statement. Also ambulances don't transport deceased people to the morgue (seems to be what you were implying), that only happens in the movies.