|
United States5162 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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.
People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify.
|
On October 07 2010 13:39 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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. People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify.
Well, just curious what would you want different with the unemployment department? time = money, the reason why they only infrequently check job search records (They do check some times) is because the studies they've done show that they would have to pay I think it was like $4 for every dollar they would save. Would you suggest it would be in the taxpayers best interest to pay say, $400,000 for a $100,000 return?
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 07 2010 14:05 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:39 Myles wrote:On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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. People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify. Well, just curious what would you want different with the unemployment department? time = money, the reason why they only infrequently check job search records (They do check some times) is because the studies they've done show that they would have to pay I think it was like $4 for every dollar they would save. Would you suggest it would be in the taxpayers best interest to pay say, $400,000 for a $100,000 return?
No, but it's the reason I feel cheated when I see my tax dollars going to someone who sits at home all day and doesn't look for a job until a year later when their benefits end.
|
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.
Logic fail much?
Letting a house burn for not paying insurance is like letting a person die for not having health insurance. The act of fighting a fire is directly comparable to the act of giving treatment to a suffering person. The act of not paying a fee for fire insurance is comparable to not paying health insurance.
The correlations are pretty clear from a logical standpoint. Your personal opinions may vary, but you cannot twist the logic to suit your own argument.
|
Bloody ridiculous.
They should have saved the house from burning down, then charged the man for their services. If the man refused to pay/couldn't pay, they could have sued the crap out of him. That way, the man would have been just as ruined, but his house would still have been standing. Afterward the city could sell the house once the man was evicted for not being able to pay his bills.
If you're going to run emergency services like a business, at least make sure you leach as much money out of your "customers" as you can. Sheesh.
|
On October 07 2010 14:26 Piledriver 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. Logic fail much? Letting a house burn for not paying insurance is like letting a person die for not having health insurance. The act of fighting a fire is directly comparable to the act of giving treatment to a suffering person. The act of not paying a fee for fire insurance is comparable to not paying health insurance. The correlations are pretty clear from a logical standpoint. Your personal opinions may vary, but you cannot twist the logic to suit your own argument.
If you read on the next few posts I think he came around on this issue, sounded like there was a misinterpretation had.
|
Logic fail much?
Letting a house burn for not paying insurance is like letting a person die for not having health insurance. The act of fighting a fire is directly comparable to the act of giving treatment to a suffering person. The act of not paying a fee for fire insurance is comparable to not paying health insurance.
The correlations are pretty clear from a logical standpoint. Your personal opinions may vary, but you cannot twist the logic to suit your own argument.
Having no arms or legs doesn't entitle you to free cab rides. Not paying your fire bill does not entitle you to have your home saved.
Isn't "logic" fun?? I love using metaphors to twist my advantage.
--
Listen, the guy should have payed. Volunteer firefighters need the money for equipment and supplies and a steady paycheck. Think of the $75 as a hedge against the future. Sure the chances of your home catching on fire are really slim so you could save $75/year by not paying but, in the event something does happen, you're boned in the long run.
A Volunteer fire department CAN NOT put out a fire UNLESS the person paid for the service because the person can sue the fire department for property damage (from the water).
Retarded, right? Welcome to the justice system.
|
On October 07 2010 14:43 reg wrote:
A Volunteer fire department CAN NOT put out a fire UNLESS the person paid for the service because the person can sue the fire department for property damage (from the water).
Source for this? What happens when the firefighters damage the property of a paying customer? Are they covered from some kind of contract?
|
On October 07 2010 14:49 Lancehead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:43 reg wrote:
A Volunteer fire department CAN NOT put out a fire UNLESS the person paid for the service because the person can sue the fire department for property damage (from the water). Source for this? What happens when the firefighters damage the property of a paying customer? Are they covered from some kind of contract?
The payment is considered consent.
|
Having no arms or legs doesn't entitle you to free cab rides. Not paying your fire bill does not entitle you to have your home saved.
Isn't "logic" fun?? I love using metaphors to twist my advantage.
Yeah bro, that's not even a metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
|
On October 07 2010 14:53 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +
Having no arms or legs doesn't entitle you to free cab rides. Not paying your fire bill does not entitle you to have your home saved.
Isn't "logic" fun?? I love using metaphors to twist my advantage.
Yeah bro, that's not even a metaphor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
My apologies. It seems I haven't quite mastered the proper use of the word metaphor. Let me rephrase my original point as, "analogy". Better?
|
On October 07 2010 14:51 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:49 Lancehead wrote:On October 07 2010 14:43 reg wrote:
A Volunteer fire department CAN NOT put out a fire UNLESS the person paid for the service because the person can sue the fire department for property damage (from the water). Source for this? What happens when the firefighters damage the property of a paying customer? Are they covered from some kind of contract? The payment is considered consent.
This is only true if some one can show the fire department was negligent. (Maybe hosing off a house that was not on fire or in danger of catching fire?)
Actually if someone's house were on fire and the the owner told the fire department he refuses to have them put it out, the fire department still can put the fire out because it represents a serious hazard to other property, or if there is no threat to nearby property, they can put it out because the person does not have a permit to burn garbage on their property.
|
On October 07 2010 14:55 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:53 No_Roo wrote:
Having no arms or legs doesn't entitle you to free cab rides. Not paying your fire bill does not entitle you to have your home saved.
Isn't "logic" fun?? I love using metaphors to twist my advantage.
Yeah bro, that's not even a metaphor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor My apologies. It seems I haven't quite mastered the proper use of the word metaphor. Let me rephrase my original point as, "analogy". Better?
Analogy is the correct word, however your statement is not a very apt analogy. You are trying to equivocate a physical disability to not making a payment on a bill? That doesn't make any sense.
By the way, states offer considerable benefits to disabled people, including transportation services, I suppose that's not so much a "cab" as it is a shuttle but... yeah...
|
On October 07 2010 14:58 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:51 reg wrote:On October 07 2010 14:49 Lancehead wrote:On October 07 2010 14:43 reg wrote:
A Volunteer fire department CAN NOT put out a fire UNLESS the person paid for the service because the person can sue the fire department for property damage (from the water). Source for this? What happens when the firefighters damage the property of a paying customer? Are they covered from some kind of contract? The payment is considered consent. This is only true if some one can show the fire department was negligent. (Maybe hosing off a house that was not on fire or in danger of catching fire?) Actually if someone's house were on fire and the the owner told the fire department he refuses to have them put it out, the fire department still can put the fire out because it represents a serious hazard to other property, or if there is no threat to nearby property, they can put it out because the person does not have a permit to burn garbage on their property.
If he's outside city limits (which I believe he was) then, in Tennessee, he is legally allowed to burn it without permit. Putting the fire out would still be considered property damage.**
**I should clarify for certainty. You are not allowed to burn without a permit between Oct. 15 - May 15 without a permit if you are within 500 ft of forest, grassland, or woodland. It's Oct. 7 as of today meaning he would not need the permit assuming he was within 500 ft.
Analogy is the correct word, however your statement is not a very apt analogy. You are trying to equivocate a physical disability to not making a payment on a bill? That doesn't make any sense.
I wasn't equivocating paying someone with a disability. I was equivocating entitlement per situation based on the need of the person. Regardless, it was only an example to show that using an analogy and dubbing it logic is fallacious.
|
On October 07 2010 13:39 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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. People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify.
I think people bring that up more often than is really the case. If anyone has statistics on the subject, I'd certainly like to see them. I also doubt this is something that poses an immediate threat to you when the amount of money put into social welfare programs versus defense over the past decade are so disproportionate as to outright topple you.
But you're essentially proposing that people with no transferable skills or chance at education should be made to have even less than they already do - to starve or become homeless. Or, otherwise, to work dead-end jobs that don't provide transferable skills in order to make ends meet. It's not attractive to anyone.
It would be disingenuous to say that this is the result of the people as much as it's a part of the communities and the system that produces them (which is another thing: at the absolute low of abject poverty, the system works against you). Even something as simple as providing programs whereby degrees obtained overseas by immigrants would become viable and standing in the domestic markets would change the landscape considerably.
In other words, I don't deny that you feel like you're being leeched from, but I don't believe that you are actually being leeched from, and I don't believe you know exactly what forms social welfare can take. I think it's that generalization and bad attitude to which I as previously stated shrug and frown quietly about. Maybe I'm just Cindy Lou Who.
On October 07 2010 14:33 Slivered Skin wrote:
They should have saved the house from burning down, then charged the man for their services. If the man refused to pay/couldn't pay, they could have sued the crap out of him. That way, the man would have been just as ruined, but his house would still have been standing. Afterward the city could sell the house once the man was evicted for not being able to pay his bills.
If you're going to run emergency services like a business, at least make sure you leach as much money out of your "customers" as you can. Sheesh.
I don't think that's how Law works, i.e. "My boy Tony said he'd totally give me a million dollars if I found him some shawarma. I found him some shawarma and now boy won't pay me" doesn't hold up in court.
It works like this:
- Guy has to pay a fee of $75 to the fire department because he lives out in the sticks. Fire department response times are difficult to maintain when driving out to the middle of nowhere, and they must take extra care in the face of agricultural life, farms, etc. lest a forest fire occur.
- Guy does not pay $75, either from choice or absent-mindedness
- House catches on fire because somebody in the house set a barrel full of trash on fire and then went to take a shower
- Fire department arrives. They proceed to make sure that the fire stays within the property lines because Guy did not pay the $75.
I don't think the firefighters were doing the jig while his house burned down, but firefighters are not altruistic crusading Super Friends against all forms of heat-releasing, light-emitting, matter-oxidizing combustion processes.
|
Seems like this thread has gone off-course.
The more I learn about this incident the more the Fire Fighters come off as douchebags.
Apparently this guy has historically ALWAYS paid his $75 dues. Every year prior he has paid and this time, for whatever reason, he didn't. He told them he would pay tommorow during the incident. He made clear he simply forgot (possible but since he has paid in pass I think u give him the benefit if the doubt) and that they would get their money.
Given his history it seems like the officials were completely unreasonable.
|
On October 07 2010 15:18 On_Slaught wrote:
Seems like this thread has gone off-course.
The more I learn about this incident the more the Fire Fighters come off as douchebags.
Apparently this guy has historically ALWAYS paid his $75 dues. Every year prior he has paid and this time, for whatever reason, he didn't. He told them he would pay tommorow during the incident. He made clear he simply forgot (possible but since he has paid in pass I think u give him the benefit if the doubt) and that they would get their money.
Given his history it seems like the officials were completely unreasonable.
If thats the case then the firefighters are total douche bags but they didn't have any legal obligation to put the fire out :\
Poor guy. I feel bad for him.
|
That's why in Chile the firefighters are totally volunteers...
i just find it ridiculous... then we should not send troops to save haiti when it broke down due to the massive earthquake...
lame.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 07 2010 15:09 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:39 Myles wrote:On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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. People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify. I think people bring that up more often than is really case. If anyone has statistics on the subject, I'd certainly like to see them. I also doubt this is something that poses an immediate threat to you when the amount of money put into social welfare programs versus defense over the past decade are so disproportionate as to outright topple you. But you're essentially proposing that people with no transferable skills or chance at education should be made to have even less than they already do - to starve or become homeless. Or, otherwise, to work dead-end jobs that don't provide transferable skills in order to make ends meet. It's not attractive to anyone. It would be disingenuous to say that this is the result of the people as much as it's a part of the communities and the system that produces them (which is another thing: at the absolute low of abject poverty, the system works against you). Even something as simple as providing programs whereby degrees obtained overseas by immigrants would become viable and standing in the domestic markets would change the landscape considerably. In other words, I don't deny that you feel like you're being leeched from, but I don't believe that you are actually being leeched from, and I don't believe you know exactly what forms social welfare can take. I think it's that generalization and bad attitude to which I as previously stated shrug and frown quietly about. Maybe I'm just Cindy Lou Who.
Everyone has a chance at education. Public schools aren't great, but if you work hard and get good grades you can get scholarships and/or grants. And somebody has to work those dead-end jobs. We can't support a nation where everyone works 9-5 and has a great white collar job. People have to work as janitors, bus drivers, waiters, farm workers, ect.
The problem is, and going to a poor school I was witness to it, kids don't fucking try. I'm no genius but I slept through high school and got a 3.5. I was literally asleep 90% of the time I wasn't in a gym class. And you know what, most of the teachers appreciated it because I didn't cause problems. You're telling me that I can sleep through school and get a better gpa than 80% of my class and that's somehow not the kids fault?
|
On October 07 2010 15:26 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:09 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 13:39 Myles wrote:On October 07 2010 13:29 jon arbuckle wrote:On October 07 2010 12:27 Myles wrote: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. People take advantage of the system by claiming unemployment and never look for a job until it runs out, or living off welfare your whole life and hardly making an attempt to get off it. The problem is that there are so many people that it's very hard to make sure everyone who is getting welfare is doing their best to get off it. Unemployment offices don't even ask for job search records because it would take so much time to verify. I think people bring that up more often than is really case. If anyone has statistics on the subject, I'd certainly like to see them. I also doubt this is something that poses an immediate threat to you when the amount of money put into social welfare programs versus defense over the past decade are so disproportionate as to outright topple you. But you're essentially proposing that people with no transferable skills or chance at education should be made to have even less than they already do - to starve or become homeless. Or, otherwise, to work dead-end jobs that don't provide transferable skills in order to make ends meet. It's not attractive to anyone. It would be disingenuous to say that this is the result of the people as much as it's a part of the communities and the system that produces them (which is another thing: at the absolute low of abject poverty, the system works against you). Even something as simple as providing programs whereby degrees obtained overseas by immigrants would become viable and standing in the domestic markets would change the landscape considerably. In other words, I don't deny that you feel like you're being leeched from, but I don't believe that you are actually being leeched from, and I don't believe you know exactly what forms social welfare can take. I think it's that generalization and bad attitude to which I as previously stated shrug and frown quietly about. Maybe I'm just Cindy Lou Who. Everyone has a chance at education. Public schools aren't great, but if you work hard and get good grades you can get scholarships and/or grants. And somebody has to work those dead-end jobs. We can't support a nation where everyone works 9-5 and has a great white collar job. People have to work as janitors, bus drivers, waiters, farm workers, ect. The problem is, and going to a poor school I was witness to it, kids don't fucking try. I'm no genius but I slept through high school and got a 3.5. I was literally asleep 90% of the time I wasn't in a gym class. And you know what, most of the teachers appreciated it because I didn't cause problems. You're telling me that I can sleep through school and get a better gpa than 80% of my class and that's somehow not the kids fault?
I'm Canadian, so perhaps things are different, but being a bus driver requires certain qualifications for skill in driving the vehicle - certification, basically. Farming require agricultural knowledge, location, and capital (lots of capital; I don't know what you mean by "farm workers"). And being a waiter/waitress requires a certain quality of dress and attitude that probably isn't readily available to someone who needs that cheque to feed their kids for the week. I'm also unsure of whether or not janitorial jobs require a background check; if so, that too. Nothing's as easy as it looks, and some people require the perspective and assistance to get them to see a way out of their mess.
And not everyone reaches their intellectual and emotional apogee in high school or even college, and no one should be condemned to a life of wrapping Big Macs because they thought chemistry was boring when they were 16. People should have a right to second, third, etc. chances in life; again, it's about the shape those chances take and how the assistance comes to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
