|
On October 06 2010 00:13 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end. It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a fire department. One truck is usually around $500,000 and this is for a pumper or tanker, Ladder engines are more expensive. That is just the cost of the truck, not all the equipment that goes with it, hoses, axes, first aid stuff, the gear the firefighters wear. Now, add in the cost of maintaining these trucks, paying the fire fighters, buildings to house the equipment, all the high pressure water mains and fire hydrants, ... starting to get the picture? They came up with this method of paying for fire coverage to cover what has always been a service that costs an exorbitant amount of money. There are costs associated with everything, and when you don't help to provide the resources to combat these things, why should you reap the benefits of what everyone else has put into it. No, $75 is not a lot of money, and doesn't really cover much of the cost of the fire department, but $75 from the hundreds that are paying it helps quite a bit, especially when almost no one actually to use the service.
And if you were one of those firefighters, would you really want to risk your life for someone who doesn't care about you at all, as evident by his lack of payment. By paying into the fire department you are not only protecting you property, you are helping protect the fire department by giving them better tools and training. By not paying, and still expecting to get service you are saying "I dont give a rats ass that you risk your life every time you go out to do your job, my stuff is more important then your life, now go risk your life and save my stuff.
|
On October 06 2010 01:40 Radios wrote:
Good to see America is still a nation where money means more than other human beings.
You want to know why the country is going downhill? This bullshit right here. When firefighters run protection rackets and let thousands of dollars worth of stuff burn to ashes over a fucking $75 fee. Unbelievable.
Sometimes I wish the country would just collapse and die.
Of course there needs to be changes Radios. However, our entire social services departments are taped with red tape. Everywhere. That is how it works. If you want it to collapse and die, by all means, go ahead. I would rather I work towards a change then watch it die. You do what you will.
|
Legally? They didn't have to do anything.
But I can't imagine anyone who would argue that firefighting should not be paid for out of property taxes that fund public firefighting, regardless of whether X property lot is within Y city, etc. Surely extensions and such should be made to ensure all homes all covered by public firefighting and not require out-of-pocket expenses to guarantee one's home. Even though this man's house was outside of the city limits, it's just unbelievable that municipal taxes or something of the sort wouldn't cover firefighting without having to worry.
|
On October 06 2010 01:25 mierin wrote:
It's like the kids who buy iPods instead of health insurance and end up getting cancer...it really really sucks, but it's their fault in the end for not thinking ahead.
This keeps being brought up, but the analogy fails hard. "The Kids" can at least opt to pay the total cost of the treatment themselves should they have the money or should theybe able take up a loan (that's at least something...<sigh>). This possibility was not even given to the guy in this case. What the city offered there was obviously not an insurance, so comparing it to an insurance = fail.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote:
I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help?
|
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
|
They offered to pay if they stopped the fire and they still said no. That's bullshit. Not a fan of this policy or the firefighters.
|
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
Only problem is the firemen are under-paid and getting laid off too. I can see that it is inhumane, but as in my previous statement, they cannot accept direct offers, which is bribery. Free lunches can be taken advantage of.
Where I work as part time, people have enough money to pay for their own lunches. Only those poor enough should have to use the free lunch program. Instead, half of the people who can afford their own lunches take advantage of the free lunch program only meant for poor people. Free lunches are a joke.
Again, as stupid as this sounds, the man should have paid for the services. Neglect was his own downfall.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Hope the man had house insurance.
Fire Dept probably could have made money from it by charging the man like 75,000 for the service. Sure, they might have to sell the house, a car, and some property, but that family was going to lose all that anyways if the fire fighters didn't do anything. What happened here is just a waste of resources.
|
i'll wager that the firfighters were not allowed to do anything because he hadn't paid the fee, they may well have been in trouble if they had..... don't be too quick to blame them, i am sure they would have gone in and got any people out, but if there is no one in danger and they have been told they aren't allowed to put out the fire due to lack of payment, then what can you expect them to do?
Its wrong, do not misunderstand me. I think its disgusting, but I wouldn't think its the firefighters faults more likely their management.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
|
On October 06 2010 01:47 Alou wrote:
They offered to pay if they stopped the fire and they still said no. That's bullshit. Not a fan of this policy or the firefighters.
That's probably the main reason I'm angry about this whole ordeal. They had the opportunity to collect what was owed to them, but didn't. They skipped out on the payment so that they could watch the house burn down, like a bunch of sociopathic man-children.
|
lol, I wrecked my car and some mysterious person called 911 on me even though I was fine
I told the paramedics to go away because I knew they'd charge me insane amounts for nothing, so they left without rendering any aid and 2 days later sent me a bill for $125 just for having to drive 4 blocks with 2 people in the ambulance
|
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
|
The core solution is they should have forced these out of city people to pay, instead of giving them a choice, because clearly in this scenario he couldn't handle the choice.
Sometimes you have to protect idiots from themselves.
|
What's next? Somebody stabs me sending me to the hospital. They don't treat me because I have no health insurance.
I know those firefighters have to follow orders but common senses should tell them that not saving the house after they arrived at the location would cause a bigger problem.
|
Isn't capitalism wonderful.
|
On October 06 2010 02:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
What's next? Somebody stabs me sending me to the hospital. They don't treat me because I have no health insurance.
I know those firefighters have to follow orders but common senses should tell them that not saving the house after they arrived at the location would cause a bigger problem.
This already exists. A lot of people die in the United States because they can't afford medical costs. Not for emergency room visits, of course, but if you need say a lung transplant or some sort of expensive surgery afterwards its raise half a million+ or die.
|
Coming from someone who has family that lives in the boonies, some counties don't have enough population or money to afford fire fighting, so they either organize a volunteer fire department (sheesh these are so bad), or they charge a fee. It's a fact of life, it happens sometimes. In some states they have tried to ban the volunteer fire fighting since there have been unprofessional practices before that have led to problems.
|
On October 06 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote:
I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different. What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help?
If I was already standing next to said country with a "fix all that country's fucking problems button" (ie: a fire hose) then yea I'd press it and settle up with them after the fact. They'd find some way to work off the debt.
But obviously the point you were making is much more complicated than this - and that's the problem. This situation wasn't complicated. These "firefighters" could have solved the problem instantly and let the city deal with how to make sure the man paid his debt. Instead they watched his house burn to prove some mafia-style point of "better pay your protection money fuckers". That's insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
