The article explains why; regulators sometimes can't foresee that their decision to consider something fee for service will eventually prevent it from being considered as a communal expense.
The article explains why; regulators sometimes can't foresee that their decision to consider something fee for service will eventually prevent it from being considered as a communal expense.
Fee-for-service doesn't prevent ambulances from being considered a communal expense, it just makes sticky. There is nothing preventing a government from making ambulances equivalent to fire or police except the will.
From the article: "The most efficient way to fund ambulance services would simply be to pay for the option the way that options are normally paid for: with a premium, collected from everyone the service stands ready to rescue". In other words, taxation just like anything else we expect to be available to anybody.
"Sticky" is what I was saying. It currently can't be done because of path dependence from historical regulation to industry structure to attitudes. No broader reason. I felt your post was setting up "If there's no logical reason, it must be because people with property are greedy". Sometimes things are the way they are because they got that way.