|
On October 05 2010 15:47 itzbrandnew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic. I'm saying the fire fighters are idiots... The policy is what it is, but to sit and watch as a mans house burns down. Screw off. I don't care what my "orders" were I'd help no matter what and we could discuss compensation later
Right bro, enjoy being "figuratively" jobless. Btw when you are making great judicious claims about your generosity and kind heart, you know what, just don't. Throwing yourself into a makebelieve situation and saying I'd do this, they are bad is just asinine. In any situation where heroics were called for I can just as easily say you'd be cowering in the corner pissing yourself. I can say this as easily and truthfully as you can say you'd be some kind of Heroic Champion all the girls can lift their skirts too. Get real and find out that this life is reality not your make-believe internet lies. Fire fighters are doing their job, no morals here, MATERIALISM is here, apparently material property to you is akin to a human life in which case I hope you'd pay the $75 insurance fee in case your sister was on fire.
|
On October 05 2010 15:47 itzbrandnew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic. I'm saying the fire fighters are idiots... The policy is what it is, but to sit and watch as a mans house burns down. Screw off. I don't care what my "orders" were I'd help no matter what and we could discuss compensation later
Yes, they can do that and become heroes in the media for saving the burning house of some guy who didnt pay the fee. After that, 99.9% of the citizens decide not to pay the monthly fee, then the fire department is gone because they have no money to function. Now, shit happens.
Seriously, lots of American live in a bubble world or what? You pay and you get the service. That's it.
|
On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to.
The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price.
|
Yes he didnt pay his fee but it coulda been avoided, but its obvious the bureaucrats wanted make an example which is stupid as it is as they thought the example they made by letting this poor family's home down would make people be more aware of the conquences if ppl dont pay but in the end, people are more aware how stupid and immorale this fee is but as people should be asking where is your tax dollars going instead going towards providing these kind of services.
|
On October 05 2010 15:55 Loranga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to. The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price.
EVERYTHING has a price. Fire trucks, maintenance, and firefighter paychecks don't come free. You either pay for it with tax money or fees. The home owner in this case was outside the municipality so he didn't pay for it with tax money, and therefore had to pay a fee to opt in. He didn't pay the fee. Of course he's going to say he "forgot" it when he's looking for sympathy. Forgetting to pay your bills is irresponsible. You can't just "forget" to pay car insurance and then expect to be covered if an animal crushes your car.
|
On October 05 2010 15:57 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:55 Loranga wrote:On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to. The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price. EVERYTHING has a price. Fire trucks, maintenance, and firefighter paychecks don't come free. You either pay for it with tax money or fees. The home owner in this case was outside the municipality so he didn't pay for it with tax money, and therefore had to pay a fee to opt in. He didn't pay the fee. Of course he's going to say he "forgot" it when he's looking for sympathy. Forgetting to pay your bills is irresponsible. You can't just "forget" to pay car insurance and then expect to be covered if an animal crushes your car.
Any smart county would attach it to the property tax =p You own land here you're under our protection no buts about it.
|
On October 05 2010 15:59 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:57 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:55 Loranga wrote:On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to. The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price. EVERYTHING has a price. Fire trucks, maintenance, and firefighter paychecks don't come free. You either pay for it with tax money or fees. The home owner in this case was outside the municipality so he didn't pay for it with tax money, and therefore had to pay a fee to opt in. He didn't pay the fee. Of course he's going to say he "forgot" it when he's looking for sympathy. Forgetting to pay your bills is irresponsible. You can't just "forget" to pay car insurance and then expect to be covered if an animal crushes your car. Any smart county would attach it to the property tax =p
He lives outside the city limits of the city that sent the firefighters and doesn't pay property tax to that city. That's why he has to pay a fee to get the service.
|
On October 05 2010 15:39 Droodjerky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:35 xbankx wrote: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. 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. So, you're a hypocrite. You're not following your logic to it's conclusion. You see, he didn't pay the bill. So, you should watch the people burn like you watch the house burn. It's analogous to health insurance. You don't/can't pay, you don't get your life saved. There E.R. circumstances that you do get saved (from immediate danger) and charged out the arse for it later. Which, is why I think they should have saved the house and charged a large fee. Since it's in line with other Insurance Industry Standards.
Regarding the term hypocrite: I know its tempting, but its just a terrible idea to throw out terms you don't understand in the blood sport of internets debating.
Its not like he's lying about his beliefs--you can argue that they're inconsistent, sure.
Are they? Sometimes common sense isn't a terrible metric (see: search and seizure precedents), which Mr. xbankx seems to subscribe in this case.
But if you want a more rigorous argument: one could argue that life has a value that transcends a mere monetary value. Its not as hokey as its sounds--its the same line of argument used in death penalty, abortion, healthcare, etc. debates.
To pose a quick question, regarding your ER example: would you say that the ER shouldn't save someone who can't 'pay out the arse' for their life-saving treatment?
|
Thank god I live in a country where people have some common sense. Making people to choose either to pay money for fireservice or not rofl. Resulting Firemen being forced to watch somebody house burn down. Things like this should never be an option but afflicted rights to everyone like health insurance o.q.
I cant even imagine such a situation in germany o.q
|
Nobody died here, a man was stupid and didn't open his door so his pets couldn't get out so the pets died, but no humans were even in danger. The article CLEARLY STATES:
The fire reportedly started in some barrels outside. As the flames crept closer to the home, Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.
So were three dogs and a cat.
So he saw the fire approaching his house and didn't bother to save his pets, even though the fire hadn't even reached his house at that point and it was safe to at the very least open his door and call for the pets.
|
On October 05 2010 16:00 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:59 semantics wrote:On October 05 2010 15:57 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:55 Loranga wrote:On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to. The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price. EVERYTHING has a price. Fire trucks, maintenance, and firefighter paychecks don't come free. You either pay for it with tax money or fees. The home owner in this case was outside the municipality so he didn't pay for it with tax money, and therefore had to pay a fee to opt in. He didn't pay the fee. Of course he's going to say he "forgot" it when he's looking for sympathy. Forgetting to pay your bills is irresponsible. You can't just "forget" to pay car insurance and then expect to be covered if an animal crushes your car. Any smart county would attach it to the property tax =p He lives outside the city limits of the city that sent the firefighters and doesn't pay property tax to that city. That's why he has to pay a fee to get the service.
So what his county doesn't have fire fighters? There is no set up of joint protection or anything meaningful. You can still attach it to property tax either way =p
|
On October 05 2010 16:01 smileyyy wrote:
Thank god I live in a country where people have some common sense. Making people to choose either to pay money for fireservice or not rofl. Resulting Firemen being forced to watch somebody house burn down. Things like this should never be an option but afflicted rights to everyone like health insurance o.q.
I cant even imagine such a situation in germany o.q
This kind of stuff can only happen in a third world country or in the US.
Go figure =/
|
On October 05 2010 16:01 bbq ftw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:39 Droodjerky wrote:On October 05 2010 15:35 xbankx wrote: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. 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. So, you're a hypocrite. You're not following your logic to it's conclusion. You see, he didn't pay the bill. So, you should watch the people burn like you watch the house burn. It's analogous to health insurance. You don't/can't pay, you don't get your life saved. There E.R. circumstances that you do get saved (from immediate danger) and charged out the arse for it later. Which, is why I think they should have saved the house and charged a large fee. Since it's in line with other Insurance Industry Standards. Regarding the term hypocrite: I know its tempting, but its just a terrible idea to throw out terms you don't understand in the blood sport of internets debating. Its not like he's lying about his beliefs--you can argue that they're inconsistent, sure. Are they? Sometimes common sense isn't a terrible metric (see: search and seizure precedents), which Mr. xbankx seems to subscribe in this case. But if you want a more rigorous argument: one could argue that life has a value that transcends a mere monetary value. Its not as hokey as its sounds--its the same line of argument used in death penalty, abortion, healthcare, etc. debates. To pose a quick question, regarding your ER example: would you say that the ER shouldn't save someone who can't 'pay out the arse' for their life-saving treatment?
His and a few other peoples argument in this thread is simple:
Pay for service = Get service
Don't pay for service = Don't get service
What they don't understand is that part of that service in this case is saving people from that burning property.
If you agree with their argument, the logic is exactly the same as Health Insurance.
Pay for service = Get service
Don't pay for service = Don't get service
The arguments even more closely resemble one another when you take into account both Insurances have saving a life as part of them.
He's a hypocrite, because he pretends to subscribe to a position he doesn't actually subscribe to. Then he uses an Ad Hoc argument to distance himself from my accusation.
You see, saying Human life is worth more than the property has no bearing on the Insurance Policy.
If anyone refuses to accept the logic above, they are at the very least cognitively dissident.
To answer your question, I would say that Health Care should be universal and government provided (aka, from taxes). However, in the current state of the system. They should treat the person and charge them an appropriate sum. The E.R. should also give a detailed bill on what the person is being charged for.
|
On October 05 2010 16:01 smileyyy wrote:
Thank god I live in a country where people have some common sense. Making people to choose either to pay money for fireservice or not rofl. Resulting Firemen being forced to watch somebody house burn down. Things like this should never be an option but afflicted rights to everyone like health insurance o.q.
I cant even imagine such a situation in germany o.q
Think again, you're probably paying the same amount in the form of gov tax. This is how it should work in all countries since when you make stuff like this "optional" there will be some idiot out there who wants to save 75 bucks and will end up whining when he loses his house. It's nice that the government is flexible and all... too bad its really hard to be flexible and idiot-proof at the same time.
|
This is why I live in Canada. My god ... EVERYONE around the world is always hearing bad news which ALL comes from the states. The most hated family and corruption in government/army... I am SICK of hearing trash from the country down south of my border. But having firefighters not having a feeling of "fuck it I need to help this man" (lol 75$ fee) trash at its finest. There is no place for heaven for these men.
|
On October 05 2010 16:13 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 16:00 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:59 semantics wrote:On October 05 2010 15:57 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:55 Loranga wrote:On October 05 2010 15:45 dogabutila wrote:
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to. The fact that you have to pay for fire protection is the real issue here. Something so crucial shouldn't have a price. EVERYTHING has a price. Fire trucks, maintenance, and firefighter paychecks don't come free. You either pay for it with tax money or fees. The home owner in this case was outside the municipality so he didn't pay for it with tax money, and therefore had to pay a fee to opt in. He didn't pay the fee. Of course he's going to say he "forgot" it when he's looking for sympathy. Forgetting to pay your bills is irresponsible. You can't just "forget" to pay car insurance and then expect to be covered if an animal crushes your car. Any smart county would attach it to the property tax =p He lives outside the city limits of the city that sent the firefighters and doesn't pay property tax to that city. That's why he has to pay a fee to get the service. So what his county doesn't have fire fighters? There is no set up of joint protection or anything meaningful. You can still attach it to property tax either way =p
The responding fire crew was from the city, not the county the gentleman lives in (which i could assume is volunteer fire fighting, which can take a long time to dispatch out if you have to wait for a driver + you need an engine and a squad truck to respond to any fire). The fact that the county's volunteer fire fighters didn't respond to the fire is why the man's house burnt down. The paid fire fighters from the city did their job, and if it wasn't for their service in the first place, they would have never been there to protect the neighbors house.
You could tax it if you want, but the taxes the man pays goes to the county (who funds the fire department, not the state), so the city doesn't see a penny from him without this service. You can call it inhuman but if the city didn't even offer this service you wouldn't even know this man's house burnt down.
|
On October 05 2010 16:19 backtoback wrote:
This is why I live in Canada. My god ... EVERYONE around the world is always hearing bad news which ALL comes from the states. The most hated family and corruption in government/army... I am SICK of hearing trash from the country down south of my border. But having firefighters not having a feeling of "fuck it I need to help this man" (lol 75$ fee) trash at its finest. There is no place for heaven for these men.
It's just property lost. They didn't care if he paid his fee, but their boss does and they can't do volunteer work while on duty using work resources without getting fired.
The man DID NOT LIVE WITHIN CITY LIMITS. That means he cannot expect to get firefighting service from the city. However, the city had a program that let people outside the city, but near it, buy firefighting services for a fee. This man did not buy this service.
|
On October 05 2010 16:17 dinmsab wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 16:01 smileyyy wrote:
Thank god I live in a country where people have some common sense. Making people to choose either to pay money for fireservice or not rofl. Resulting Firemen being forced to watch somebody house burn down. Things like this should never be an option but afflicted rights to everyone like health insurance o.q.
I cant even imagine such a situation in germany o.q Think again, you're probably paying the same amount in the form of gov tax. This is how it should work in all countries since when you make stuff like this "optional" there will be some idiot out there who wants to save 75 bucks and will end up whining when he loses his house. It's nice that the government is flexible and all... too bad its really hard to be flexible and idiot-proof at the same time.
Thats what I am saying things like this should NEVER be an option. If not paying is resulting in your house burning down, while the firemen are watching. thats waht I mean with common sense. Freedom is all good and nice but freedom of choice comes with responsibility and as you can see its obviously too much for some people.
Edit: The funny thing is the Thread under this is about a woman getting fired for having sex before since its unchristian. I guess helping thy neighbor is also =)
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:29 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:27 EvilTeletubby wrote:On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. Ouch Mani.  hahaha, when people don't pay for HBO do you send out arson teams?
Of course not! But the competition does!
|
this guy mustve had his name on a huge list or something. or he lived in a small town. the volunteer firefighters knew that he didn't pay, so they didn't respond.
i could imagine the scenario.
"call from mr. smith. block 10. his house is on fire"
*looks at the blacklist*
"nah, forget it. he didn't pay the $75. let it burn!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
