|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:19 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house? That's why the firefighters were there. They were making sure the fire wouldn't spread to the neighbours house, since the neighbour was covered by their service due to opting in by paying for it. If it started to spread to the neighbour's house, they would've hosed the area that the fire was spreading across to get to the neighbour's house.
While it was possible in that situation, it's not possible in all. A similar situation is vaccinations. The main reasons that vaccinations are free is that you need to vaccinate a certain % of the population in order to prevent outbreak, and doing less than that will allow the disease to spread uncontrolled. By vaccinating (or in this case putting out the fire) of one person, you've also prevented someone else from getting sick.
|
On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine.
The $75 fee was Insurance. So, they didn't have to do a damned thing to save his house. You should also know they would be under no obligation to save anyone/anything in the house.
Basically, if they (and you) were to follow your logic to it's conclusions. You'd sit outside and watch people burn to death in the house as well. You see, the man didn't pay to have anyone rescued in case of a fire. Money doesn't give a crap about anything other than money.
You see, it's not profit that helps people. It's people that help people. Watching someones house burn down is a douche thing to do. And you sir are a hypocrite for not standing with your logic all the way through.
|
World does not always work the way people would like it to. This situation is similar to the hypothetical ethical question which asks "If you are the government of a certain country and a corporation within your nation has produced a cure for a disease which is currently ravaging a nation which can't afford the high price of the cure, do you pass a law or act to force the corporation to provide the cure at a low price / for free?"
The obvious answer of "yes" runs into the problem that corporations like the one in the question only spend gigantic funds on R&D that leads to cures because they expect to make a profit. If you establish a precedent that you will not allow the country to make a profit because you aren't willing to let people die you undercut the motivation to find those cures, thus saving the day today but costing many more lives in the future when there is no cure at all next time.
Similar situation here: if you put out the fire without someone being able to pay for it, you establish a precedent that you really don't have to pay for fire protection. That decreases the amount of money the fire department receives, either degrading the services they can offer or destroying it as a profitable / safe-investment initiative at all, leaving everyone with sub-par or no fire protection at all.
That's all assuming that you prefer the private model, of course: making it government solves it, though with all the problems that having a government running something entails.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:22 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, private // volunteer policing with cert's required would be the most ideal way of law enforcement. Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical to transition. :-/
Everything about pure volunteer based society/anarcho-capitalism is impractical.
|
On October 05 2010 15:21 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house? This is exactly what I've been thinking. It's one thing to deny a service due to non payment (ignoring whether its morally or ethically appropriate), but in the practical case of a fire, not stopping it as soon as it starts presents a huge danger to the surrounding territory unless the fire department can somehow ensure ONLY the non-payer gets his shit burned, which sounds pretty ridiculous. I'm quite biased as I lost a home to fire years ago but there's something fundamentally wrong with a system where civic protection that should be paid for by taxes and public spending is instead apparently pseudo-"contract" based if you will. Yes, we know the firefighters were there to prevent the spread of the fire, but it's pretty irresponsible to run the risk anyway of just letting a huge ass fire burn without taking action to stop the source, isn't it?
Fires spreading between houses isn't that easy. There is a pretty large gap between homes required by law when you get a building permit specifically to make it harder for fires to spread between homes. The patch of grass in between is the easiest way for the fire to spread, and the firefighters that showed up hosed it down according to the article. Fire won't spread across water soaked grass.
|
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol
|
On October 05 2010 15:23 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:19 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house? That's why the firefighters were there. They were making sure the fire wouldn't spread to the neighbours house, since the neighbour was covered by their service due to opting in by paying for it. If it started to spread to the neighbour's house, they would've hosed the area that the fire was spreading across to get to the neighbour's house. While it was possible in that situation, it's not possible in all. A similar situation is vaccinations. The main reasons that vaccinations are free is that you need to vaccinate a certain % of the population in order to prevent outbreak, and doing less than that will allow the disease to spread uncontrolled. By vaccinating (or in this case putting out the fire) of one person, you've also prevented someone else from getting sick.
Vaccinations are voluntary, just like buying into a firefighting service of a nearby town.
|
On October 05 2010 14:55 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine. But not the same as health insurance because in an emergency you can still get treatment even without insurance. At everyone else's expense, which is crappy for everyone else. People who actually pay their insurance have to also pay for uncovered people through taxes because emergency rooms don't turn people away. That is why the health care reform bill is going to make buying health insurance mandatory like car insurance. The uninsured people only hurt the people who are insured whenever they get into trouble.
They also get billed for a ton more than what people with insurance pay so I wouldn't say it's just "at everyone else's expense."
Even without insurance and outside of an emergency you can still get treatment by paying out of pocket, which is what people are suggesting. A billionaire with a medical illness can still get treatment by paying X amount. They don't tell him/her that they can't receive treatment because they don't have insurance.
|
On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
User was temp banned for this post.
I'm pretty sure that's what happened exactly. They came and helped the other person.
Honestly my first thought was "huh, well yeah, the guy didn't pay the fee for the service, he was taking a calculated risk in not doing that."
That didn't really last long though. I sure as hell wouldn't want this to happen to me.
Honestly I don't really know how to judge this situation, I'm not sure it's as black and white as some are making it out to be.
|
On October 05 2010 15:24 Droodjerky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine. The $75 fee was Insurance. So, they didn't have to do a damned thing to save his house. You should also know they would be under no obligation to save anyone/anything in the house. Basically, if they (and you) were to follow your logic to it's conclusions. You'd sit outside and watch people burn to death in the house as well. You see, the man didn't pay to have anyone rescued in case of a fire. Money doesn't give a crap about anything other than money. You see, it's not profit that helps people. It's people that help people. Watching someones house burn down is a douche thing to do. And you sir are a hypocrite for not standing with your logic all the way through.
What is the point of the fee then?
|
OK.... the firefighters wouldn't have even been there if it wasn't for the neighbor who paid up.
Would this be such a big deal if the guy never paid his bill and then phoned the firefighting company and they said "nope you're not insured with us, we can't help you"?
Does the firefighter have a responsibility to put out the fire if he's standing next to it? I would argue no, he doesn't as long as nobody's life is in danger.
|
On October 05 2010 15:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:55 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 14:45 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine. But not the same as health insurance because in an emergency you can still get treatment even without insurance. At everyone else's expense, which is crappy for everyone else. People who actually pay their insurance have to also pay for uncovered people through taxes because emergency rooms don't turn people away. That is why the health care reform bill is going to make buying health insurance mandatory like car insurance. The uninsured people only hurt the people who are insured whenever they get into trouble. They also get billed for a ton more than what people with insurance pay so I wouldn't say it's just "at everyone else's expense."Even without insurance and outside of an emergency you can still get treatment by paying out of pocket, which is what people are suggesting. A billionaire with a medical illness can still get treatment by paying X amount. They don't tell him/her that they can't receive treatment because they don't have insurance.
Poor people who go into an emergency room aren't paying a dime. They may get a bill, but they almost never pay it, and the hospitals can't afford the lawyer to persue $100,000 from a guy living in poverty who doesn't have the money anyways. They just get the government to cover these unpaid bills, which comes from the tax dollars of everyone else.
The bills you're probably thinking of are non-mandatory medical services. Emergency rooms are only required to act if there is immediate threat to life. Things like cancer don't have to be treated by an ER, so the uninsured would have to pay first to get treatment. However getting shot and going to the ER, they'll take the bullet out and patch you up even if you don't have insurance, and they'll try to bill you but they don't expect to get paid.
|
On October 05 2010 15:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:22 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, private // volunteer policing with cert's required would be the most ideal way of law enforcement. Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical to transition. :-/ Everything about pure volunteer based society/anarcho-capitalism is impractical.
Not really, a bunch of things work better privately then they do run by government. For example, packages.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:26 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:23 Jibba wrote:On October 05 2010 15:19 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house? That's why the firefighters were there. They were making sure the fire wouldn't spread to the neighbours house, since the neighbour was covered by their service due to opting in by paying for it. If it started to spread to the neighbour's house, they would've hosed the area that the fire was spreading across to get to the neighbour's house. While it was possible in that situation, it's not possible in all. A similar situation is vaccinations. The main reasons that vaccinations are free is that you need to vaccinate a certain % of the population in order to prevent outbreak, and doing less than that will allow the disease to spread uncontrolled. By vaccinating (or in this case putting out the fire) of one person, you've also prevented someone else from getting sick. Vaccinations are voluntary, just like buying into a firefighting service of a nearby town.
They're free and if it became a public issue where people weren't getting polio/TB/etc. (say Jenny McCarthy's idiocy actually took hold), they would stop being voluntary. In fact, flu shots are already mandatory to go to school, and since going to school is mandatory...
|
This feels like a mob-type shakedown effort, and feels mighty illegal/unethical. I can't agree in the slightest.
"You'd hate to have something tragic happen to you, better pay your 'protection' fee."
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:30 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:24 Jibba wrote:On October 05 2010 15:22 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, private // volunteer policing with cert's required would be the most ideal way of law enforcement. Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical to transition. :-/ Everything about pure volunteer based society/anarcho-capitalism is impractical. Not really, a bunch of things work better privately then they do run by government. For example, packages. Capitalism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism. I'm not arguing against private industry, I'm arguing against a pure voluntary society.
|
On October 05 2010 15:28 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:24 Droodjerky wrote:On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine. The $75 fee was Insurance. So, they didn't have to do a damned thing to save his house. You should also know they would be under no obligation to save anyone/anything in the house. Basically, if they (and you) were to follow your logic to it's conclusions. You'd sit outside and watch people burn to death in the house as well. You see, the man didn't pay to have anyone rescued in case of a fire. Money doesn't give a crap about anything other than money. You see, it's not profit that helps people. It's people that help people. Watching someones house burn down is a douche thing to do. And you sir are a hypocrite for not standing with your logic all the way through. What is the point of the fee then?
The point of the fee is income for the Fire Dept. You see, since he didn't pay the fee, anyone in the house would have burned (if they couldn't get out on their own) and the Fire Dept would have watched and done nothing. Or, they would have been hypocrites and helped the people and let the house burn. Or, maybe they would have put the fire out and set a bad precedent.
You see, anyway it's sliced, it's a terrible system when thought about in a humane light.
|
On October 05 2010 15:31 number1gog wrote:
This feels like a mob-type shakedown effort, and feels mighty illegal/unethical. I can't agree in the slightest.
"You'd hate to have something tragic happen to you, better pay your 'protection' fee."
That's like saying if you're driving along the road, a deer runs out and hits your car (no fault of your own) resulting in total destruction, but you haven't been paying for car insurance, you should get a free car repair if you decide to now pay your monthly fee. No, you shouldn't, because you weren't paying your insurance and it would be unfair to everyone else who does if you take money out of their pool without contributing to it.
|
On October 05 2010 15:24 Droodjerky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote:
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine. The $75 fee was Insurance. So, they didn't have to do a damned thing to save his house. You should also know they would be under no obligation to save anyone/anything in the house. Basically, if they (and you) were to follow your logic to it's conclusions. You'd sit outside and watch people burn to death in the house as well. You see, the man didn't pay to have anyone rescued in case of a fire. Money doesn't give a crap about anything other than money. You see, it's not profit that helps people. It's people that help people. Watching someones house burn down is a douche thing to do. And you sir are a hypocrite for not standing with your logic all the way through.
As I said as long as there is no people in the house then the fire department is under no obligation to help. The guy didn't pay his fee so he suffered the consequence by losing his monetary property. Life is another case though that is why I put in the clause that "as long as there are no people in the house".
Look life is hard, nothing is free so you either pay the fees or suffer the consequences. People can be generous and help but don't expect it every time.
|
On October 05 2010 15:05 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:05 HeavOnEarth wrote:
actually wow, at first i was like jesus these guys are assholes, but it makes a lot of sense now why they let this guys house burn down.
Actually they're still assholes but just not as retarded as i thought they were. So they're assholes for not wanting to all lose their jobs in a tough economy? How many of you high and mighty people would throw away a job and a pension to save a guy's house who didn't even bother to pay his insurance fee?
Actually , nevermind i agree, they aren't assholes, and i can see people who pay the monthly fee going " Well serves him right"
This system is completely stupid though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
