|
On October 05 2010 16:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 16:44 Sanders wrote:
Where did this happen? Kazakhstan? Somalia? Niger?
... the USA?
There is nothing that can justify this sort of action... or inaction. This is a basic public service that should be provided to everybody no questions asked. I cannot see why such an important service should be provided in this way. It is something everybody needs and therefore should be provided from tax money to ensure that everybody is protected and bullshit like this doesn't happen.
A few years back, here in NZ, a power company shut off power to the house of a lady who was on life support because they failed to pay their power bills. She died, public outrage ensued, law change happened and we made an important fix to our system. I can only hope this leads to a fix in America's clearly flawed system. Well, couldn't you argue she should have planned her life better? What if the company is on the brink of bankruptcy and can't afford to give power to those who don't pay? I don't really see the "no questions asked" logic. I completely disagree. It's circumstantial. As many have pointed out, it's very similar to insurance. Unfortunately if you don't pay for it you aren't entitled to anything.
Clearly she should have planned her life better. I mean, the plan to get on life support wasn't the smartest. The plan to not have enough money to be able to pay the power bill wasn't exactly a stroke of brilliance either. People make mistakes dude. The power company wasn't struggling and because of their decision a woman died.
Sure, people who are struggling shouldn't expect to be provided with wine and caviar, but they should never be denied access to the most basic services; accommodation, food, power, healthcare, etc. Yes, and fire-safety. It's worth paying more than our share to ensure we don't have any Lazarus' sitting outside our door.
|
I know this has been discussed to death already, but I don't understand why they couldn't just put it out anyway, then get a court order with a fine for the service fee.
I mean, they could even get him to sign a paper contract first (before they take any action to help him) stating that he is in agreement with paying the fine at a later date.
It's just depressing to realise that this isn't just a one-off account, but more an indicator of where this world is heading.
|
"hey man, don't touch my coke or i'll slap you"
*touches coke and gets slapped*
"what was that for?!?!"
there's really no argument with the logic here. don't pay for service, don't get service.
as for the opinion that firefighters should save his house anyway here is something to consider. the fire department is not working continually and saving peoples' houses from fires everyday.
if firefighters still put out fires regardless of whether or not people paid the service fee, the service would be unsustainable. people would stop paying because they can just pay when their house catches on fire.
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained.
it MUST be a constantly sustained service but it can't be if they are paid only when fires happen. that's why they don't save houses of people who don't pay the fee.
|
On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained.
Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date.
They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls from that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full.
|
On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
"hey man, don't touch my coke or i'll slap you"
*touches coke and gets slapped*
"what was that for?!?!"
there's really no argument with the logic here. don't pay for service, don't get service.
as for the opinion that firefighters should save his house anyway here is something to consider. the fire department is not working continually and saving peoples' houses from fires everyday.
if firefighters still put out fires regardless of whether or not people paid the service fee, the service would be unsustainable. people would stop paying because they can just pay when their house catches on fire.
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained.
it MUST be a constantly sustained service but it can't be if they are paid only when fires happen. that's why they don't save houses of people who don't pay the fee.
Thats asinine, firefighters should have some sort of ethical code that compels them to put down fires the same way doctors will try to help someone who is injured in the street instead of going straight for their wallet and seeing if theres any reason to help him or not.
|
On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full.
that's not a fact.
you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense.
|
On October 05 2010 17:39 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full. that's not a fact. you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense.
No, but you can be fined heavily for abusing it.
edit - you didn't really read all of my post did you?
|
lmao funny his neighboors pays taxes for thsoe firefighters....society is so Calais in america these days.
|
damn, had no idea this was how firefighters are paid... i always thought of it as some sorta public service that our taxes go to. anyways... what douchebags! the man said he'd pay the costs of the insurance and he'd probably pay more and they didn't budge. tough luck.
|
On October 05 2010 17:40 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:39 mahnini wrote:On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full. that's not a fact. you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense. No, but you can be fined heavily for abusing it. edit - you didn't really read all of my post did you?
i did. did you read mine? this isn't a service you can pay for after the fact. it is a service that has to be maintained at all times.
|
On October 05 2010 17:39 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full. that's not a fact. you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense.
Yes you can. It is the same difference between insured against a certain event (robbery, car crash, etc) and having your insurance company pay the costs in return for your continued payments and being not insured against the event and instead paying all the costs out of your own pocket.
The man could have paid the firefighters a sum that directly covered the cost of fighting the blaze because he didn't pay the annual fee that was charged to cover the expected cost over time. Clearly, this would be substantially more than $75 dollars but it should have been an option.
I think you'll find that most people aren't as critical of the decision that was made as they are of the system that allowed it to occur. Sure, it was a dick-move reminiscent of Dives but such a vital service should never be provided in such a manner.
|
On October 05 2010 16:29 dogabutila wrote:
I don't think thats correct. Nobody is losing money because he is still spending it all in town. The money might go to a different store, but it isn't as if he is spending LESS to rebuild his house and replacing everything in it vs buying new shit.
All that work and effort is what jobs are. People get paid to do things, otherwise if there is nothing to do then people do not get paid to do it.
Point is, there is no less money being spent either way. He is either buying new stuff since his house did not burn down, or buying stuff // hiring people to build / repair his house and then replacing it. The bolded part is what I am arguing about, although I might just be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
I'm essentially arguing that there's a mistake between the means through which wealth is exchanged (money) and actual wealth (assets, services). They're two very different things; there can be money exchange without any wealth being actually created. Destroying and rebuilding something is a good example of something that makes money circulate, but that doesn't ultimately create any new good or service.
To give an idea of where the problem lies, let me give an overly simplified example. Suppose that there's a man who is fresh out of medical school. This person has a house and enough money saved to erect a building and furbish it up.
If his house burns down, he spends the money to rebuild it. This means that the builders in town get the money and nothing really changes.
If his house doesn't burn down, he spends the money to erect a small doctor's office. This means that the builders in town get the money anyway, but now there's also a doctor's office in town. This generally improves the quality of living, so this outcome is more desirable to society as a whole.
Now, a lot of things might not go as in the example. Say, the man might decide to spend his money in another way, or he might not be a doctor. The point is, if his house burns down then he certainly creates nothing positive with his money; he just rebuilds what was already there. But if his house doesn't burn down, then he gets to create something that wasn't there before (or to do something with his money that he couldn't have done otherwise). If we go by the assumption that, on average, people try to create/do things that have positive effects on their surroundings (which seems reasonable to me; I think that there is at least a correlation between the general wealth of an area and the quality of life in there, though of course wealth isn't the only factor), then we have to conclude that it's better for society if his house doesn't burn down. Despite the fact that the builders get paid either way.
|
Just for some perspective, you should consider that it takes something like a 5-man team, with lots of training and lots of equipment, for a fire truck response. Immediate response means they're either on standby or putting out fires while on duty, so someone's gonna have to pay for it.
Let's say they accumulate costs until they get a fire call, then they charge the caller however much they've incurred in living, training, and equipment expenses since they last got paid. That's probably in the $100k range. I'd rather have my $40k house burn than call the fire department, then. That system sucks.
So what we do instead is that everyone who owns a house pays $100 a year. That nicely covers the fire department's costs while ensuring that anyone who needs it can get firefighters. This is basically socialism, and it works pretty well, until people start taking advantage of the system without putting anything into it.
Suppose that these firefighters decided to help this guy out. 5 minutes in, someone else reports that his house is burning. This man has put in his chip to pay the fire department's expenses. Does he have to wait longer, because they were helping a guy who didn't pay?
How would you feel if you paid $100 a year for a service. It turns out you need that service. The only problem is, the service is being tied up by someone who isn't paying for that service. Acceptable?
|
On October 05 2010 17:49 Sanders wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:39 mahnini wrote:On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full. that's not a fact. you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense. Yes you can. It is the same difference between insured against a certain event (robbery, car crash, etc) and having your insurance company pay the costs in return for your continued payments and being not insured against the event and instead paying all the costs out of your own pocket. The man could have paid the firefighters a sum that directly covered the cost of fighting the blaze because he didn't pay the annual fee that was charged to cover the expected cost over time. Clearly, this would be substantially more than $75 dollars but it should have been an option. I think you'll find that most people aren't as critical of the decision that was made as they are of the system that allowed it to occur. Sure, it was a dick-move reminiscent of Dives but such a vital service should never be provided in such a manner.
it's not the same as getting your car fixed without insurance at all. there is no alternative.
you either
A) pay for insurance and be covered
or
B) not pay and not be covered
you either
A) pay to sustain a fire dept.
or
B) not pay and have your house burn
with your analogy sure you can still pay to get your car fixed but you can't pay the insurance to cover your accident after the fact because the insurance companies would be unsustainable if that were the case. the insurance companies and fire department rely on the money from people who are paying and whose houses are not catching on fire in order to carry out their function which is protect people who are paying and whose houses ARE catching on fire.
|
Wow,
anyways fun fact the firefighters in ancient Rome would actually burn your house or bushiness down if you didn't pay their extortion fee. It was one of Nero the Rich's many criminal enterprises.
|
On October 05 2010 17:46 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:40 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:39 mahnini wrote:On October 05 2010 17:34 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained. Chances are, a good amount of people already don't pay the fee. The fact is, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date. They could even operate on a 3 strikes rule, or some other appropriate alternative, whereby if a householder doesn't pay the service charge but calls out the fire dept more than twice (for argument's sake), then they get charged and/or stricken from the fire depts system, whereby no calls to that address will be answered, until the service charge is paid in full. that's not a fact. you're missing my point. you can't pay for a full-time on call service that you expect to come to your house at anytime whenever your house catches on fire only when it happens, it just doesn't make sense. No, but you can be fined heavily for abusing it. edit - you didn't really read all of my post did you? i did. did you read mine? this isn't a service you can pay for after the fact. it is a service that has to be maintained at all times.
Wow....
Ok, I'll just drop this as you're clearly happy with the way things went and can't see any way in which an actual service can be provided to those who need it.
|
Not to jump on some hatetrain but I guess you have to be american to understand the idea of Fireservice being a paid service and not a right for everyone which is paid by the society through taxes.
|
Anybody arguing that they should have saved the house is arguing for a tax solution to the problem.
The solution for this fire department that is in place means they have to make examples in order to have the funds they need (and a bit more for profit).
Considering the readiness state needed along with the equipment and how rare fires are mean the one time fee would have to be pretty much equal to a normal house in order for it to break even. Which means people couldn't pay it anyway.
|
On October 05 2010 17:36 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 17:26 mahnini wrote:
"hey man, don't touch my coke or i'll slap you"
*touches coke and gets slapped*
"what was that for?!?!"
there's really no argument with the logic here. don't pay for service, don't get service.
as for the opinion that firefighters should save his house anyway here is something to consider. the fire department is not working continually and saving peoples' houses from fires everyday.
if firefighters still put out fires regardless of whether or not people paid the service fee, the service would be unsustainable. people would stop paying because they can just pay when their house catches on fire.
if firefighters saved every house that did not pay the service and charged 100x the monthly amount on the spot it would still be unsustainable a good amount of people probably still would not pay. think about the frequency at which house fires happen and the amount of money that is needed to have a fire department that is on-call 24/7, properly equipped, and properly trained.
it MUST be a constantly sustained service but it can't be if they are paid only when fires happen. that's why they don't save houses of people who don't pay the fee. Thats asinine, firefighters should have some sort of ethical code that compels them to put down fires the same way doctors will try to help someone who is injured in the street instead of going straight for their wallet and seeing if theres any reason to help him or not.
You're comparing an off-duty doctor to an on-duty firefighter. In this case, if either are off-duty they will probably help you. If either are on duty they will ask for insurance.
A doctor in a street is about as useful as a firefighter without a firehose. Neither of them can help you without their equipment and their equipment costs tons of money so they neither of them will help you for free.
|
It's not a charity, it's a business. Think about what happens if they save this house. Immediately, I stop paying for my service because A) the chance my house catches on fire is VERY LOW and B) I'd much rather take that chance and pay the very, very favorable odds-to-cost fee if they were just going to save it anyway. Result? Fire house can't pay rent, fire trucks can't be maintained, firemen can't be paid, and fires don't get put out.
Seriously it sounds fucked up but if you think for like 20 seconds you'll come to this very logical conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
