>      Relying on volunteer services might have been better wording.  In
> my hometown (I'm away at University right now), we're still very
> heavily reliant on our volunteer ambulance and fire services.  We are
> also in the designated area covered by the ministry ambulance, with
> paid and often more highly qualified people and better equipment, but
> were recently told that, "since we have the volunteer corps, we are
> lower priority for coverage."  (Which isn't to say our volunteer corps
> isn't good... they are.)
 
I don't know about the training part - that would be the same.  However, 
a paid service would have more "practice" than a rotating crew of 
volunteers.  As to better equipment - we're pretty well equiped.  I 
wouldn't expect any difference in this area.
 
> DW>the part about "cutting service" is real curious - how can anyone
> cut
>   >EMS services?  So who shows up when someone dials 911 ????
> 
>      Well, obviously the ambulance does.  Just which ambulance, how
> good an ambulance, and most importantly, *when*, that's what gets
> changed.
 
Hummm...  Ok...  But then, who pays???  Right now, the patient does not 
pay.  But a "PAY" service...
 
>      Why wouldn't they cut EMS services, if they're so
> happily cutting other medical services?    Okay, so maybe
> not so happily.  But it's all part of the package.
 
Now there is an interesting point - "CUTS".  You can't cut a volunteer 
group because they're funded by donations.  They're not subject to price 
cuts - or budget cuts.
 
[ Dave ]
--- RBBSMail v18.1
---------------