|
On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
|
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote:
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire. The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
That argument is flawed.
The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured.
The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster.
The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department.
American law is very clear on this.
When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality.
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote:
No they are not. There's a reason why there's a 75 dollar fee. Firefighting is not a pay as you go service. It's not filling up your gas tank whenever you need to, they do not function like a gas station.
As I understand it, the 75 dollar fee is for people outside the city who want fire protection. People within the city just pay tax like usual. Part of those taxes are given to the fire department. Am I wrong here?
+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out. On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote:
Cool, you should think it out yourself. Do I want my taxes covering someone who isn't paying them? So I should pay fire coverage for both my area and theirs? No thanks.
Do you even read this stuff this stuff before you reply? No one's paying for anyone else. If you don't pay the fee then you pay the entire cost of the service, as laid out by the fire department beforehand. The link to the private firefighting service someone gave up above says $1200 an hour. Obviously that's enough for them to make a profit.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote:
First of all, what is the entire cost and the fees to fight it? Secondly, what do you think this will look like on the news? Considering 80% of the people who replied to this thread couldn't even read the damn original article, what conclusion do you think people will jump to? Lastly, the homeowner can challenge the bill in court if he/she/they feel like if the firefighters at fault.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. What are the costs and fees of any service? The firefighters need money to use and maintain their equipment and they should be compensated for their work and time (if they're not volunteers). They can stipulate a charge like any other service. Obviously they shouldn't try to gouge their customers. This is a basic service. The media will only have a story if the department is overcharging their customers. No one will have a problem if they charge a similar rate as other fire departments. If you don't want to have to pay a lot of cash then you should have bought the insurance. Does the media run stories every time someone without medical insurance gets a big hospital bill? I'm actually curious, since we have medicare up here in Canada.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right? On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote:Yeah, guess how much that costs and how much crap the city would get if firefighters were actually negligent in their duties. You really want the firefighters wondering if they have to navigate a legal quagmire when they're fighting fires? Look at the police departments around the country after a few highly publicized (and justified) cases on police brutality.
Honestly I don't understand this. Someone enlighten me. Let's say I'm outside county jurisdiction and have paid my $75 fire protection fee. Do I no longer have the right to sue firefighters if I think they've been negligent while fighting the fire? What's the difference (legally) between someone who pays the fee and someone who doesn't? Anyways, I'm sure there's a work around for all this legal stuff considering there are private firefighting services.
|
On October 07 2010 10:34 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote:
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire. The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster. The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this. When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires.
There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not.
|
On October 07 2010 10:46 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:34 No_Roo wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote:
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire. The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster. The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this. When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company. Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires. There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not.
Yes the difference is that fire departments are a social welfare institution. I am not saying a fire department would fund it's self solely from fires that they report to. I am telling you that the damages for them operating outside of their coverage area are LIMITED to the cost of the operation. I am also telling you that despite this, the fire department had an obligation to put that fire out (and then collect their damages in the form of a bill, and later a lawsuit if the bill went unpaid) and the International Association of Fire Fighters agrees with that. Their statement again: http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf
|
On October 07 2010 10:57 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:46 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 10:34 No_Roo wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote:
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire. The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster. The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this. When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company. Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires. There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not. Yes the difference is that fire departments are a social welfare institution. I am not saying a fire department would fund it's self solely from fires that they report to. I am telling you that the damages for them operating outside of their coverage area are LIMITED to the cost of the operation. I am also telling you that despite this, the fire department had an obligation to put that fire out (and then collect their damages in the form of a bill, and later a lawsuit if the bill went unpaid) and the International Association of Fire Fighters agrees with that. Their statement again: http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf
Ok your wording that time made it more clear to me. I definitely understand where you are coming from now. I'm now asking myself, is it better/cheaper to live outside of the jurisdiction of a fire department and be able to pay for the cost of the operation than to have it covered by your taxes? If that is the case, I'm not sure that's fair to the people living inside the department's jurisdiction. I guess what I'm trying to ask is why don't the two cities (municipalities, whatever they are) work out an agreement that extends the coverage area to protect everyone?
|
85%~ of the time firefighters are dispatched it is because of a medical emergency. Only 15% of their calls have to do with fire. They can't just get paid when your house is on fire because house fires don't happen that often.
|
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
|
On October 07 2010 10:33 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory. Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote:
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
|
On October 07 2010 11:27 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:33 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory. Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way. Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here. Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote:
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless. Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
|
I'm going to choose to avoid reading most posts of this thread to post my opinion.
Yes, it seems like a bad thing that the firefighters do - however, they are simply enforcing their 75$ fee by not saving his house. If there weren't serious consequences to not paying the 75$, then no one would pay it and act as freeloaders. Eventually, this would lead to a failure of the fire department system (as it is set up), and likely it would dissolve (as far as I understand).
Yeah, its hard, but its what they have to do.
(its pretty fair to compare this to a loose form of "insurance", at least strictly in definition and not in comparison. Simply acts as a one time payment of risk aversion pooled together by many people to help avoid a low probability, high cost event from happening, again, as far as I understand it)
|
On October 07 2010 11:51 wxwx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:27 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 10:33 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory. Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way. Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here. On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote:
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless. Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works. I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
|
Judicator, it is not necessary for a majority of the people to agree with an act for it to pass, it only had to be deemed "necessary" enough by the representatives.
If you want a real example, see the 800 billion bailout in 2008, where the disapproval ratings through letters sent to congressmen was... I don't know how much but must have been like >90%, and it still passed.
|
I kinda feel like the United States and even the world would be a better place if people read what other people have said on a particular issue before voicing their opinion on that issue.
I also kinda feel like the United States would be a better place if people were happy and comfortable with the knowledge that some of their taxes would be going towards helping those poorer than them because tacitly that means those with greater income will be helping them, the people who are happy and comfortable, everyone.
That said, the fire department is morally questionable but ethically justified.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:24 jon arbuckle wrote:
I kinda feel like the United States and even the world would be a better place if people read what other people have said on a particular issue before voicing their opinion on that issue.
I also kinda feel like the United States would be a better place if people were happy and comfortable with the knowledge that some of their taxes would be going towards helping those poorer than them because tacitly that means those with greater income will be helping them, the people who are happy and comfortable, everyone.
That said, the fire department is morally questionable but ethically justified.
I'd like to feel that way, but how I generally feel is that I'm just being leeched off of. Way too may people take advantage of the system.
|
On October 07 2010 12:24 Yurebis wrote:
Judicator, it is not necessary for a majority of the people to agree with an act for it to pass, it only had to be deemed "necessary" enough by the representatives.
If you want a real example, see the 800 billion bailout in 2008, where the disapproval ratings through letters sent to congressmen was... I don't know how much but must have been like >90%, and it still passed.
Local governments don't function the same way like the national ones. Good try though.
Also, you have pointed to the bailout that is playing a giant role in this upcoming election season....unless you are happy with passing a temporary proposition.
|
On October 07 2010 12:05 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:51 wxwx wrote:On October 07 2010 11:27 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 10:33 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory. Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way. Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here. On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote:
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless. Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works. I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same. Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
I'm not here to argue. I'm just here here to give my 2 cents.
But here's what's funny.. You called me out for not knowing what actually happens in the ER.. but little did u know i actually work in healthcare. next time i will make sure to include this little detail in my first posts in case you embarass yourself again.
|
An update on the story:
Woman says firefighters blameless in house burning
"'You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do,' Cranic told The Associated Press. 'I've had firemen call and apologize.'....
Her grandson, Lance Cranic, 21, who lived there with her and her husband, started the fire while burning trash in a barrel. He went inside to take a shower and upon returning saw a shed next to the house in flames. It spread despite his efforts to put it out with a garden hose.
Paulette Cranic said they had paid the fee in the past, although sometimes late, but it slipped their mind this year...
'We have insurance and are happy everyone is alive,' she said."
Source: http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13282086
|
On October 07 2010 12:05 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:51 wxwx wrote:On October 07 2010 11:27 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 10:33 Runnin wrote:On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory. Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way. Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here. On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote:
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless. Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works. I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same. Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
Your comment is actually why his argument is sensible, hospital treats the person, then charges the person, and due process is sought to collect on that bill. We're saying the same "luxury" should have been extended by this fire department which is by analogy, put the fire out, then send the bill for it (This bill would be much larger than $75, and the Craniks were willing to pay it).
|
On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:24 jon arbuckle wrote:
I kinda feel like the United States and even the world would be a better place if people read what other people have said on a particular issue before voicing their opinion on that issue.
I also kinda feel like the United States would be a better place if people were happy and comfortable with the knowledge that some of their taxes would be going towards helping those poorer than them because tacitly that means those with greater income will be helping them, the people who are happy and comfortable, everyone.
That said, the fire department is morally questionable but ethically justified. I'd like to feel that way, but how I generally feel is that I'm just being leeched off of. Way too may people take advantage of the system.
How are people taking advantage of the system?
How do you feel that people are leeching off of you?
I mean, a real, profitable discussion of these issues would necessitate that you share private details like geographic location, income, etc., which you definitely don't have to do, but if there are people so destitute as to take advantage of a given system, the problem lies with the system, not with the people the system produces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
