|
On October 05 2010 18:27 willeesmalls wrote:
Workable solution:
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital.
So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources.
People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters.
The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist.
Fires don't come up consistently is the issue here. if there is a month with few to little fies- the department gets no money, and has to lay off workers, cut hours, cut supplies.
Except, in a business that is 24/7, and protects against something that could lead to death, you need full time workers, and the best equipment.
Heres an example why this wouldnt work
lets say in the summer , firefighters account for 70% of their business.
and in the off seasons(that isn't summer) - firefighters do 30% of their business.
If people plan around it, this business model may work
However, due to variance, sometimes it may be 0-10% in the winter and sadly, you need at least 20% to maintain the minimum amount of workers.
Spiral and crash and burn. goes teh business model
|
On October 05 2010 18:28 Hinanawi wrote:
Fire service should be paid for through taxes, regardless of city borders (the closest city fire dept. can be dispatched, as it was here, in the event the house is slightly outside a city's border). On the federal or state level if needed.
Even sadder are the people defending this system. Let me guess, it would be unfair and socialist because rich people's taxes might end up going to put out a fire in a poor person's house? This country is done for. I'm getting out of here as soon as I finish college.
So think about that for a second. They should tax homeowners to put out fires. Homeowners should be willing to pay this. You KNOW you have a system that works on a monthly fee similar to a tax.
JUST PAY THE FUCKING FEE.
|
If they saved his house, a shitload of people would stop paying the fee.
If that's the system you guys in USA chose to go for, then they made the right move.
In Croatia, you don't pay for fire department services, it serves every citizen the same and therefore is funded from the taxes. Plus there are numerous volounteering fire brigades here.
|
FWIW this is a singularity in America as well, I believe. I know Hawaii has tax-based firefighting services.
|
On October 05 2010 18:34 jtype wrote:I take it all back. THAT's why we wont resolve our debate.
a debate requires two arguments, not one argument and one unsubstantiated opinion.
|
That was really fucking stupid by the fire department. Makes me angry that the government would condone this. Even if some idiot doesn't pay 75$ its really poor form to not help when you have the chance to help. On my ER month, I saw plenty of patients who cannot pay their full bill or only pay part of their bill. Do we not treat them??
I guess we wont once the government finishes the healthcare takeover. Sweet, less work for me!
|
jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid?
|
America, fuck yeah!
Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw.
I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
|
edit - you know what, there's little point arguing this really. We obviously aren't on the same page here.
|
On October 05 2010 18:48 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid? Wow... Really? Are you reading anything that I write? I don't know how you can't put it together - Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying. I don't know if it's just a lack of imagination or just people desperately clinging to their original arguments, or if it's because they're getting defensive about the USA, but there are other systems that work also..
Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying.
It does.
|
On October 05 2010 18:48 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid? Wow... Really? Are you reading anything that I write? I don't know how you can't put it together - Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying. I don't know if it's just a lack of imagination or just people desperately clinging to their original arguments, or if it's because they're getting defensive about the USA, but there are other systems that work also..
consider this: what are the chances that your house will catch on fire?
are you still willing to pay monthly even if you don't have to and still get the same service?
are you willing to pay any amount given that you have a 1 in 1000 (random number here) chance of that investment pays off?
|
On October 05 2010 18:44 Sanguinarius wrote:
That was really fucking stupid by the fire department. Makes me angry that the government would condone this. Even if some idiot doesn't pay 75$ its really poor form to not help when you have the chance to help. On my ER month, I saw plenty of patients who cannot pay their full bill or only pay part of their bill. Do we not treat them??
I guess we wont once the government finishes the healthcare takeover. Sweet, less work for me!
Was that really fucking stupid of the fire department or of the homeowner for not paying the fucking fee?
|
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
|
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
|
On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US...
LOL you are terrible. excellent exit attempt by trying to turn this into a US vs the world flamefest.
A+ effort but 0/10
|
That is absolutely rediculous.
I'm glad there is no such thing here. They have no choice but to help everyone which is as it should be for services such as police, ambulance and fire engines.
|
|
|
On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US...
no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
|
Jesus, The Roman Fire Brigade is alive and well lol.
Really though I had no idea such an idea of having to pay a certain fee to the fire department existed, that's fucking absurd lol.
|
On October 05 2010 19:00 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US... no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
