Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nursing Homes & Sprinklers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bones42
    replied
    How many firehouses did we read about on fh.com this past year had fires that were undetected?

    How many nursing home fires did we read about?

    Believe me, I am all in favor of nursing homes/residential care centers/whatever you want to call them having full protection. I know the few in my town are because they learned from past history. Their reimbursement rates did not change. They were not funded by any outside agencies. They paid the costs themselves and managed to stay in business. Families of the residents were actually happy/impressed that the "homes" cared that much about their residents. While the systems were being put in by each home over time, residents were switching homes to get into the ones that offered the better protection. Imagine that.


    I also remember in 1981 when 11 people died in a fire in my town where there was no system in place at the seniors home they were living in. I also remember in 1992 when we had another fire in a nursing home with no protection, luckily no fatalities in that one. I also remember in 1995 when a resident in an assisted living home set her own bed on fire and the newly installed sprinkler system snuffed the fire out before any real damage could be done. Like many people on this board, we've seen what happens to the non-ambulatory people at a fire. I will agree and I will even verbally discuss til we're blue in the face that these systems should be put in place.

    But I still find it hypocrital of the fire service to push for all these things that they don't have themselves. And I'm not talking every firefighter having their personal houses alarmed/sprinklered (which would not be a bad idea) but at least their firehouses.


    PS - I'm not the No vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    While I agree we as a FS in general seem hypocritical for living in unsprinklered homes (not all) this situation is a little different.

    How does one use the analogy of sprinklereing a fire station full of capable, amublatory persons with far more knowledge of how to react to fire and smoke to a residential care facility where the patients many levels of incapacitation?

    Leave a comment:


  • DianeC
    replied
    Originally posted by Bones42
    Firefighters pushing for laws about sprinklers/alarms in other places while the firefighters themselves don't have such things in their own homes/firestations is a joke.
    I live in a sprinklered apartment building.

    Leave a comment:


  • NEOgreg
    replied
    Should ALL nursing homes be required to have sprinkler systems?
    This poll will close on 12-28-2006 at 02:40 AM
    YES 43 97.73%
    NO 1 2.27%
    NO OPINION 0 0%
    Voters: 44.

    OK, which one of youse comedians voted "NO"?

    (attempting to cool down an increasingly heated discussion)

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    What part of

    Originally posted by CaptainGonzo
    How many more nursing home patients or those suffering from mental and physical disabilities have to be injured or die in a fire to make the installation of sprinklers viable? One? One Hundred? One Thousand? Ten Thousand?

    The oath I took was to protect life and property. I wasn't aware the one you took was to preserve someone's profit margin....
    "If we wanted to define "risk", for a moment, as the risk of becoming financially unviable" was too dificult to understand? I expressly removed the life safety issue to elaborate on Bones' point, which involved the financial viability of the operations.

    And when you're done rolling your eyes, consider what "property" means, in a business context. Oh, and since you bring up an unanswered question from a third poster, where were the responses to the question about how many fire stations are unsprinklered?

    I'm basically done with you guys on this particular issue. It should be clear to you, from the level of detail I have been able to give in my posts, that I have some specialized knowledge of the res-care industry and its mechanics that you do not. If you care to believe that sprinklers can be mandated, without the costs being accounted for, without a negative effect on the availability of a vital public service, so be it. Someday, I would like to live in that fantasyland myself.

    So just to recap before I sign off:

    1. Neither I nor any other poster suggested that sprinklers could not or should not be mandated;

    2. Since aggressive and dubiously lawful regulatory actions, not backed with new funding sources, were implemented in my state, the number of beds in my state has declined by 40%, to the detriment of the very poorest of our elderly;

    3. Most states that have imposed sprinkler mandates have simultaneously provided funding, in the form of higher reimbursements, tax credits or loan programs. Apparently those states just like to waste money, since according to most of the posters on this thread, such funding sources are entirely unnecessary;

    4. There is a difference, in both life safety issues (small difference) and financial models (huge difference) between Nursing Homes and Residential Care Homes. Those wishing to discuss the issue intelligently would be well advised to learn and understand the distinctions;

    5. DianeC's postings regarding very valuable and constructive legislation, and soliciting support for that legislation, received no comment whatever from anyone but me. Because, after all, what is the point of discussing something valuable and constructive if it means missing the opportunity to be "Safetier-than-thou"?

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptainGonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by randsc
    ...it will put it out of business. I didn't answer the question because it (with all due respect to Bones) isn't very illuminating.

    If we wanted to define "risk", for a moment, as the risk of becoming financially unviable, that a certain mandate that affects all facilities is a higher risk than a potential disaster affecting one facility.

    So?
    How many more nursing home patients or those suffering from mental and physical disabilities have to be injured or die in a fire to make the installation of sprinklers viable? One? One Hundred? One Thousand? Ten Thousand?

    The oath I took was to protect life and property. I wasn't aware the one you took was to preserve someone's profit margin....
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 12-01-2006, 12:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    Obviously...

    Originally posted by CaptainGonzo
    You haven't answered Bones' question...

    Originally Posted by Bones42
    ...it will put it out of business. I didn't answer the question because it (with all due respect to Bones) isn't very illuminating.

    If we wanted to define "risk", for a moment, as the risk of becoming financially unviable, that a certain mandate that affects all facilities is a higher risk than a potential disaster affecting one facility.

    So?

    Leave a comment:


  • FlyingKiwi
    replied
    Dog, meet Bone.

    Go Chew.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptainGonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by randsc
    According to you, the cost hardly matters, right? Since the providers are bring in tens of millions a year, according to your math?

    You haven't answered Bones' question...

    Originally Posted by Bones42
    If the cost of a sprinkler system will put the place out of business...what will the cost of an uncontrolled fire do to that same place of business?

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    So for all of you who believe...

    ...that an immediate mandate with no regard to funding is called for, how about addressing my original analogy?

    [QUOTE]My analogy would be this. A municipality contracts with a fire district for a particular level of protection, for example, that a firehouse will be staffed with an engine company and a truck company, and in exchange the municipality will kick in a million dollars to the fire district budget. (am quite common arrangement in the States) There is then a bad fire, and the municipality decides it would feel more comfortable with TWO engine companies and a truck company. Should the municipalty be able to mandate that staffing level without adjusting its payment to the fire district?{/QUOTE]

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    Well

    Originally posted by CaptainGonzo

    Bing-fracking-o!!!
    According to you, the cost hardly matters, right? Since the providers are bring in tens of millions a year, according to your math?

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    Who's stalling?

    Originally posted by RFDACM02
    Maybe I should have said we will pay, as in case you've forgotten we are the government, we pay for these things. The government gets its money from us and maybe a slight bit of overborrowing. And if the governement is the end user/payer in these home, then wouldn't making sprinklers mandatory now in effect make them/us pay for it?

    Ah yes, the name calling begins. Luckily bother, if you are actually a firefighter, I don't care what you think and as a firefighter I've certainly been called worse by better men (and women). I don't agree with stalling for dollars, so I must be profoundly ignorant. I have not disputed your facts, I merely do not agree that the mandate shouldn't be pushed through now, reagrdless of funding. At some point we should take our fire problem seriously. As the largest industrialized nation in the world we should not have a fire death rate that rivals third world countries. Also, I have never said that better funding shouldn't be done to offest costs, but I don't think that should be the stalling point on this issue. I see people rolling their eyes at how easily "we" can be knocked off our convictions. "OK yep, we asked, they said no, I guess its time to go back to the firehouse and think up another hairbrained idea to protect them from themselves."

    Mine too. Still happens every day! Most codes change every few years yet we don't subsidize corrections for compliance. Unfunded mandate. Laws that cost people money are passed every day, yet still no funding or reimbursement. So every change in your state is funded? By who? You? Taxpayers? Yeah, lets make everything required be paid for by the masses.

    You know I'd like a new SUV, maybe the government should pay for all that safety crap and emissions BS and stuff, I just want a plain jane Hummer without all that other garbage. With the feds share I'll bet I can just about swing it!

    Pass a spinkler mandate tomorrow. Pass the funding mechanism as part of the same legislation. Like the connecticut law cited above. Pretty simple, really.

    Leave a comment:


  • randsc
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02

    A few of you are ready to shoot down any mandatory requirements for sprinklers in existing facilities, so what's your idea to improve fire safety for these people?
    Who, exactly? I have read back through the threads, and I have not found one post that says sprinklers can't be made madatory. The question is whether the cost should be borne by the provider, in return for no increase in revenue.

    Several proposed solutions have been offered, including increasing the state medicaid/medicare reimbursments, providing tax credits, and low interest loan and grant programs.

    Leave a comment:


  • kfactor
    replied
    And with regard to the original discussion. Should be re-distribute wealth to pay for sprinklers in these facilities. My personal opinion is yes. In a country as wealthy in the U.S. and that has the wealth to fund pork barrel earmarks, we should protect our older citizens who have very limited or no ability to self-rescue.
    Pork-barrel spending was $50 some billion dollars in recent years, that would pay for a lot of sprinklers. To bad the "compassionate conservatives" that have run up pork barrel spending to record levels don't have a little compassion for our older folks in these types of facilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • kfactor
    replied
    In my state, unfunded mandates are expressly forbidden by the state constitution.
    randsc, either you are deliberately misrepresenting the NH constitution or you are not familiar with it. The NH constitution prohibits unfunded mandates from the state to POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS (i.e. local government). What relevance does that have to the discussion regarding funding of sprinklers in nursing homes, assisted living, etc.?

    And further, even if the state funded sprinklers in these facilities, who do you think pays? the taxpayers. Bottom line is the gov't at any level doesn't pay for anything. What we are talking about here are complex social/political issues such as wealth re-distribution which in effect is the source of revenue for anything that someone benefits from that they don't foot the entire bill for.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X