I always though the Fire Department was part of the city government and was supposed to fight fires no matter what, but no matter how it works this is insane. I shudder to think what would have happened if someone had been trapped inside!
Cranick lives outside of the city limits and he admits that he forgot to pay a $75 service fee that would have provided him with fire protection. Firefighters wouldn't lift a finger, much less the hoses that might have saved the house.
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.
The South Fulton firefighters did show up and managed to save a neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the fee. But they would provide no heroics for the Cranicks. A local news report shows them climbing back on their trucks, flames still dancing over what was once the family's home.
I guess if he's supposed to pay the fee and didn't, then you get what you pay for, but still it sure is a dick move for the firefighters to show up and just watch it burn ._.
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
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.
Indeed.
I don't think there should be a fee for firefighting services... but if there is one and you don't pay it, then don't expect your fires to be fought.
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.
it mightve been better to put out the fire first, then charge him triple of that $75 fee, or some sort of punishment like that. still, it's quite a douchebaggery move by the TN FD.
Given the system they have (insurance) I suppose you can justify letting it burn.
But, uh, who really thinks 911 services should be voluntary insurance? The town has just lost this man's business because he now has to struggle to replace his home instead of purchasing what he would have purchased without his home burning. Sucks for all involved except the fire department.
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.
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?
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned.
I don't doubt that if there was someone trapped inside they would have jumped in to try to save them if at all possible, but hey you don't pay the piper he'll fuck you up.
I mean the fee they would have had to charge him would have been staggering. Not having to pay the fee and still getting your house saved sends the message you don't have to pay for it. The fee charged would have to be equal to the fee they would have to charge if NOBODY had the insurance for it to make fiscal sense.
Nothing is free. In some way everything gets paid for.
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned.
no fee, no protection. simple as that.
dont try to dig into what is conspicuous.
that seems more like inefficient bureaucracy than practicality
you'd think they would have at least saved it for a large fine to compensate for the cost
On October 05 2010 14:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote: wow what dicks
I thought being a fireman was supposed to be one of the few noble professions of altruism
just goes to show you how much I know
you stemmed your expectations on a firefighter funded by the public (taxes) and they have a different policy. This, however, seems like a private service. Thus your expectations are obsolete. )
We that's still better than canadian fire fighters. I remember a story about how this family forgot to pay fire insurance and their LAKESIDE house burnt down. Seriously, we can't even fight fires if we're next to a large body of water.
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned.
no fee, no protection. simple as that.
dont try to dig into what is conspicuous.
that seems more like inefficient bureaucracy than practicality
you'd think they would have at least saved it for a large fine to compensate for the cost
it is a private matter. and it is the practicality of the service.
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.
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned.
no fee, no protection. simple as that.
dont try to dig into what is conspicuous.
Technically its how it functions, but if you apply the "letter of the law" this strictly, you (as in the firemen, not you) are a gigantic douchebag.
Like others have said - just charge him 10x the fee - sends the same damn message. The house being insured isnt a bloody argument -.-
What they did is completely inhuman and I hope they can never show their faces in their city again.
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Deeper issue is why is the fire department run like this? By that I mean, why is funding for fire department being paid for out of pocket and not part of the city's expenses? Surely such basic civic protection should be paid for by the government through taxes and not "pay if you want/can otherwise we'll watch your house burn down".
On another point, it's ridiculous they'd let the fire burn regardless, surely the risk of spread warrants intervention regardless of the politics involved?
I've had a home burn down in a large scale fire before, it strikes me as insanity that they would let this happen.
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.
For $7500, you're better off not paying the $75 fee if the odds of your house burning down are less than 1%, which is a pretty good assumption. They'd probably have to charge more than that.
Paying for the fire department through taxes isn't really any different than the system they've already got, except that taxes aren't optional. It wouldn't be appropriate in a densely populated area for obvious reasons, but out in the middle of nowhere, I feel that having a choice is better than being forced to pay for a service you may or may not want.
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.
Exactly. Free markets have their limits. :/ FYI, Crassus used to do this (his company probably made fires worse, as well.)
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.
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.
.....
I hope you are only agreeing on some kind of philosophical/"in theory" level - I think its a pretty gigantic douchebag move by them in practical terms.
even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned.
no fee, no protection. simple as that.
dont try to dig into what is conspicuous.
Technically its how it functions, but if you apply the "letter of the law" this strictly, you (as in the firemen, not you) are a gigantic douchebag.
Like others have said - just charge him 10x the fee - sends the same damn message. The house being insured isnt a bloody argument -.-
What they did is completely inhuman and I hope they can never show their faces in their city again.
And four pets died in the fire too. They could have been saved. Whatever happened to simple human decency...
Sure they might have done this by the book, and that can't really be argued. But what they did cannot possibly be justified morally.
Protip: In the time of the romans, Marcus Licinius had the biggest (or only) fire squad and used to burn houses and gave the owner the option of watch it burn, or sell the house extremely cheap.
Here firefighters are 100% volunteers. And no one has any obligation to give them money whatsoever, still a lot of people do.. In any case the state should always have some kind of obligation regarding fire control. Never tought this could happen in the US cause i assumed they get pay like the police.
Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
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 $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message.
Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
No, the fire department shouldn't come from the city because if I decide to build a 100% concrete bunker underground, I shouldn't have to pay to save other people's wood houses or else get locked up with complimentary surprise buttsex.
Moreover, saving everyone's houses regardless of if they paid or not is also unreasonable, because then there would be no reason to pay if there were no consequences. Sure, it sucks that his house got burnt down, but if he didnt pay for the service, he shouldn't get the benefits.
Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to charge him 75000 later after the fact because then the fire department is forcing its service on people who never wanted it. Its like the bug exterminator busted down your door and killed a small trail of ants in your kitchen and then charged you 75000 for it. Even if they only charged u the base rate, say 75, it would still be unjust because you never wanted their service in the first place. Maybe you think a 15$ can of bugspray could have done the job and you were just out of your house buying said can.
The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions.
Guys, the firefighters don't make the rules. They can't barter with people as their house burns down, if they did they would get sued. If the man with a house on fire didn't pay the fee, he wasn't buying into the fire protection insurance system, and therefore he doesn't get the protection afforded by that insurance.
If the firefighters put out the fire or tried to take money from the man for doing it, they could've all lost their jobs or maybe even went to jail for extortion, no matter the intention.
I can't believe that you think it was right to let his house burn down. Who the hell just watches a house burning down? Sounds like more like organized crime than firefighters on first read-trough.
On October 05 2010 14:48 hixhix wrote: Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
so then just take the house and let the guy buy/rent it back =/
On October 05 2010 14:50 Railxp wrote: The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions.
Not only does this society not exist (nor has it ever existed), but you haven't stated (nor will you ever be able to) what prevents people from oppressing each other. Logic doesn't.
Free market fire department would raise the price of putting out a fire until they reach the threshhold of what the "customer" is willing to pay. There is no competition for that service in your voluntary, non-coercive world because a monopoly is eventually going to control all the resources needed to extinguish fires.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
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.
I can't believe that you think it was right to let his house burn down. Who the hell just watches a house burning down? Sounds like more like organized crime than firefighters on first read-trough.
Welcome to the real world where nothing is either black or white. Basically, we dont have enough resource to make everything perfect, so we go with decisions with the best expected/guestimated outcome.
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.
of course sir, youre right, this douchebag got what he deserved its not like he's some helpless wallstreet banker. This guy is clearly the mastermind of evil.
That is illegal. I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada you don't have to pay for fees like those - it's already a part of the government or something like that, and what they did is against the law.
I forgot about how it works, but I learned it in Law four semesters ago.
You can't pay $250 after you crash your car to get insurance to fix $10,000 in repair costs because that's cheating the system, and the pool of money that the cost of repairs is coming from is supposed to be filled in part by your monthly payments. It's the same idea here.
On October 05 2010 14:59 Cerety wrote: That is illegal. I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada you don't have to pay for fees like those - it's already a part of the government or something like that, and what they did is against the law.
I forgot about how it works, but I learned it in Law four semesters ago.
It's not illegal. In this case, their house was OUTSIDE city limits, they didn't pay taxes to the city.
I still don't understand why public firefighting isn't paid for out of taxes. It's madness that such an important civic protection service would not be paid for by public taxes, similar to public education and a host of other services that are seen as critically vital to the general populace...
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.
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?
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.
Sounds like the fire hadn't even reached his house when the firefighters got there. Why didn't he go open his door and call his pets to come out? Seems like the homeowner was an idiot.
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?
have u never returned a library book late? Are u a sociopath deprived of empathy of any kind?
On October 05 2010 15:03 Elegy wrote: I still don't understand why public firefighting isn't paid for out of taxes. It's madness that such an important civic protection service would not be paid for by public taxes, similar to public education and a host of other services that are seen as critically vital to the general populace...
Not only this, but in this case it seems like the ER model would be a lot more appropriate. Losing your house and all your possessions isn't quit as bad as going to the ER, but it's pretty close. Save, and then charge an exorbitant fee later.
lmfao. So so so retarded. Just from a humanitarian standpoint... how can you watch somebodies house burn down when you have the means to stop it? How do the individual firefighters benefit at all? Blah. Privatization is a mess.
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?
its not like the media is gonna be like "holy shit this guy didnt pay his fee, and the firefighters put out his house anyways, what a huge story we got here" they couldve easily negotiated soemthing under the table and no one would be the wiser I dont own a house, but i can emphasize it would be pretty fucking shitty to lose one.
Anyways, instead they wanted to make an example out of him, so people go, "Oh shit, we gotta buy that 75$/month" So yes they are assholes.
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?
have u never returned a library book late? Are u a sociopath deprived of empathy of any kind?
That isn't comparable. You already pay for the library in your municipal taxes or tuition, depending on what library you are talking about. Returning a book late results in an opt-in useage fee agreed upon when you make your library card. The terms are laid out plain and simple, and signing out the book, returning it late, and paying the late fee is abiding by the terms.
On October 05 2010 15:10 Glaven wrote: lmfao. So so so retarded. Just from a humanitarian standpoint... how can you watch somebodies house burn down when you have the means to stop it? How do the individual firefighters benefit at all? Blah. Privatization is a mess.
They don't lose their jobs.
Their boss told them not to do anything because the home owner didn't pay the fee. Firefighters wouldn't know who paid the fee or not, they must've been told so after receiving the address from the 911 call. The address was OUT OF TOWN, therefore outside their obligation, and when checking if the house was their responsibility they probably found out that it wasn't because the fee wasn't paid.
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?
the article clearly addressed this point <__<; " The South Fulton firefighters did show up and managed to save a neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the fee. But they would provide no heroics for the Cranicks. A local news report shows them climbing back on their trucks, flames still dancing over what was once the family's home."
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.
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?
The video shows the fire still burning/smoldering on the ruins... is that really..safe? Then again, that exact shot might have been inaccurate in terms of portraying exactly what was going on. I don't think any fire department would leave a site still burning without some action..?
On October 05 2010 14:26 Romantic wrote: Given the system they have (insurance) I suppose you can justify letting it burn.
But, uh, who really thinks 911 services should be voluntary insurance? The town has just lost this man's business because he now has to struggle to replace his home instead of purchasing what he would have purchased without his home burning. Sucks for all involved except the fire department.
Or, he would be purchasing the materials for rebuilding and all that stuff that goes in your house from that city as well, so they don't really lose anything.
On October 05 2010 14:54 Jibba wrote:
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
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. :-/
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.
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.
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.
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 14:36 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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 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 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 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"
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.
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.
Purely voluntary policing would never work. Purely private policing would never work either, but they have opposite flaws and would compliment each other nicely. It has to be a mix of both private policing as well as volunteer policing. Obviously though, it would be pretty difficult (to say the least) to transition from where we are to being in that ideal state. It wouldn't be worth it at all.
Which is what I was originally trying to say, albeit less clearly.
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.
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.
If the man had previously agreed to a set fee with the administrators in the event that his house did catch fire and he needed to call for help, or if the administrators had created such a service with a set fee in advance, then he could have bought it.
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.
wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
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.
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.
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.
wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
He was likely banned because his question was answered by the article and he didn't bother to read it. The article specifically said that the firefighters only showed up to protect the neighbour that did pay the fee.
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
Bunch of communists up in this thread. That and meaningless fearmongering/grasping for straws. How do we know they don't have specific guidelines for the instance of casualties in said fire, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they do. Now, WITH THIS RADICAL WAY OF THINKING all your bleeding heart moralist theories are lame as you are. You didn't pay for a service why should you receive it. To the people who say what about the dangers of it spreading, I say l2read, it says in the passage that they put out any chance of it spreading to paying customers. What you "moralists" want is just like Octomom and Welfare, they want a baby but no means to take care of it, oh throw it on the shoulders of the gov't. Why should I have to actually be able to support the things I want? If his house wasn't important enough to insure for $75 dollars than it's not important enough for the firefighters to save for free. On the other hand, chances of fire are lower than how much that 75 dollars is worth to you is CALLED A GAMBLE. And he lost. End story
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.
Again, real world is not either black or white. People go with decisions with best expected outcome. Now you complain about the policy? There are many stupid policies but overall, they're for better good. So instead of complaining, can you suggest a better system? A better system is the system that works better for general cases most of the time, not for this particular case.
The only stupid thing here is the funding source of the fire department. As someone said earlier, the firedepartment should get money from the government which is from the mandatory land tax.
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
Firefighters can't just go out of their jurisdiction and put out fires because they feel like it. Since that man who lived out of town didn't pay the fee, his home was not within the jurisdiction of the municipal fire department. If they put it out anyways they would be fired.
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
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.
Again, real world is not either black or white. People go with decisions with best expected outcome. Now you complain about the policy? There are many stupid policies but overall, they're for better good. So instead of complaining, can you suggest a better system? A better system is the system that works better for general cases most of the time, not for this particular case.
The only stupid thing here is the funding source of the fire department. As someone said earlier, the firedepartment should get money from the government which is from the mandatory land tax.
The house that burned down was outside of city limits. That house probably didn't pay any property tax to the city, which is why it required a fee to get services from the city.
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
So you would sacrifice your career to save someone from financial hardship. Sure you would buddy.
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
If you can't be responsible enough to own a home and do everything that comes with it......
I wrote like 10 responses to post here all contributing to the plight that this story exhumes all i just didn't post so i just saw the direction of this thread and am going to shoot for the most general.
People no longer feel the need to burden the costs of a society. Rhetoric of bearing the burden of society is no longer in politics. Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You is no longer founded in mainstream politics. No more LBJ war on poverty. As the conservative right started to encroach up on America in the well let's just give it the post Regan era. People have just been blaming others, pushing the cost to somewhere else, someone else if they can and this is the result.
People are not heartless, not cold and hateful.There is no reason to attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.
This is just another crack in the glass. And i'm just wondering how many more cracks need to show up before someone who has pull starts to do something about it
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
No, but the man let them die by not opening his front door and calling to them before the fire got to his house. The fire department was called when some barrels OUTSIDE his house caught fire. The article clearly states that the fire had not reached his house when the firefighters got there. The man should've had plenty of time to get his animals out, but he was probably irresponsible and figured he'd leave them inside and make the firefighters get them.
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
If you can't be responsible enough to own a home and do everything that comes with it......
Yep, humans never forget to do anything. Apparently you never have.
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.
wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
He was likely banned because his question was answered by the article and he didn't bother to read it. The article specifically said that the firefighters only showed up to protect the neighbour that did pay the fee.
lol I even said in my post that's not what he was asking at all. He is talking about a negligence issue that can arise from firefighters letting a blaze run wild and killing people and damaging other properties that do have the service.
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 15:25 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 15:45 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 15:45 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 15:45 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 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 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 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 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 16:01 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 =)
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?
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!"
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.
I think the position he claims to subscribe to is:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service UNLESS you will die in absence of said service
Which I think is not necessary a flawed or even that much of a self-inconsistent argument. Seeing as normally you certainly wouldn't give away food to someone who hadn't paid for it...unless they were starving to death. Call it irrational or whatever (many human impulses are). I think this would be the normal pattern of human behavior nonetheless.
By the way, I could easily flip your reductio ad absurdum argument using your claim that "Human life is worth more than the property has no bearing on the Insurance Policy." by casting your argument as:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service unless you get harmed by withholding that service
And since you 99% of the time get harmed in some way by denial of service, that means get service if you don't pay in most cases.
To summarize: using the equal statements one could think there are only 2 tenable positions to argue from. However, that's oversimplifying the situation. And there's a middle ground between rigidly holding to contractual agreement and forcing altruistic behavior all the time.
On October 05 2010 15:35 Zzoram wrote: 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. 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.
The analogy is flawed. Specifically, in your case the damage is already there and you are talking about trying to unload it onto somebody else. There is also no harm coming to living creatures which could be perceived as members of the family.
In the house burning scenario, the damage can be prevented for a fraction of the cost, but the firefighters refuse. If you prefer: this is refusing to help somebody in danger, not refusing to cover up the damages afterwards. The part about four pets dying in there can be particularly nasty, but that's a message which is particularly hard to get across to people with different outlooks on life and animals, so I'll just say it and not get into specific arguments about it.
On October 05 2010 14:26 Romantic wrote: Given the system they have (insurance) I suppose you can justify letting it burn.
But, uh, who really thinks 911 services should be voluntary insurance? The town has just lost this man's business because he now has to struggle to replace his home instead of purchasing what he would have purchased without his home burning. Sucks for all involved except the fire department.
Or, he would be purchasing the materials for rebuilding and all that stuff that goes in your house from that city as well, so they don't really lose anything.
Abstract the town as a single block. The system, as a whole, has the choice between: 1) leaving the house burn and rebuild it. The community has to put effort and work into remaking the house, from creating/extracting the raw materials to putting them all together. 2) hosing down the fire. The community as a whole has to expend the work and resources needed to put out the fire and to make repairs.
Option 2 is clearly the more efficient. Money exchanges are just a way to regulate who has to do the work, but in the end they do not change the total amount of effort that has to be put in. So... the system as a whole loses out by choosing 1. Could it be argued that the losses are ultimately limited to the owner of the house? Possibly, but no man is an island. It is generally a good bet to say that, by impoverishing some members of the community, the others are going to suffer as well. Ideally, society norms should guarantee that a solution like 2) always gets picked over something like 1); whether such norms can exist without more unpleasant side effects is a much wider question, of course.
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.
Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee).
Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
If you can't be responsible enough to own a home and do everything that comes with it......
Yep, humans never forget to do anything. Apparently you never have.
Of course I have. OTOH, I've never forgotten to pay car insurance, phone bills or credit card bills... etc.
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.
Fire protection is basically like insurance. If you don't pay for it you will not receive it. No matter how it is structured, if you receive it then you are paying for it. In america, most police and fire rescue is local. In other countries, most of this is federal.
However, since things are run locally if you are outside local jurisdiction then you do not pay taxes for certain things, but do not receive benefits that those who pay for the taxes do. They give people the option to buy in.
On October 05 2010 14:26 Romantic wrote: Given the system they have (insurance) I suppose you can justify letting it burn.
But, uh, who really thinks 911 services should be voluntary insurance? The town has just lost this man's business because he now has to struggle to replace his home instead of purchasing what he would have purchased without his home burning. Sucks for all involved except the fire department.
Or, he would be purchasing the materials for rebuilding and all that stuff that goes in your house from that city as well, so they don't really lose anything.
Abstract the town as a single block. The system, as a whole, has the choice between: 1) leaving the house burn and rebuild it. The community has to put effort and work into remaking the house, from creating/extracting the raw materials to putting them all together. 2) hosing down the fire. The community as a whole has to expend the work and resources needed to put out the fire and to make repairs.
Option 2 is clearly the more efficient. Money exchanges are just a way to regulate who has to do the work, but in the end they do not change the total amount of effort that has to be put in. So... the system as a whole loses out by choosing 1. Could it be argued that the losses are ultimately limited to the owner of the house? Possibly, but no man is an island. It is generally a good bet to say that, by impoverishing some members of the community, the others are going to suffer as well. Ideally, society norms should guarantee that a solution like 2) always gets picked over something like 1); whether such norms can exist without more unpleasant side effects is a much wider question, of course.
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.
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.
wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
You are right, totally my fault. I thought he was talking about this incident rather than a hypothetical.
On October 05 2010 14:50 Railxp wrote: The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions.
Not only does this society not exist (nor has it ever existed), but you haven't stated (nor will you ever be able to) what prevents people from oppressing each other. Logic doesn't.
Free market fire department would raise the price of putting out a fire until they reach the threshhold of what the "customer" is willing to pay. There is no competition for that service in your voluntary, non-coercive world because a monopoly is eventually going to control all the resources needed to extinguish fires.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
He didn't mention free markets... you can do it fine with government setting the prices...
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.
I think the position he claims to subscribe to is:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service UNLESS you will die in absence of said service
Which I think is not necessary a flawed or even that much of a self-inconsistent argument. Seeing as normally you certainly wouldn't give away food to someone who hadn't paid for it...unless they were starving to death. Call it irrational or whatever (many human impulses are). I think this would be the normal pattern of human behavior nonetheless.
By the way, I could easily flip your reductio ad absurdum argument using your claim that "Human life is worth more than the property has no bearing on the Insurance Policy." by casting your argument as:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service unless you get harmed by withholding that service
And since you 99% of the time get harmed in some way by denial of service, that means get service if you don't pay in most cases.
To summarize: using the equal statements one could think there are only 2 tenable positions to argue from. However, that's oversimplifying the situation. And there's a middle ground between rigidly holding to contractual agreement and forcing altruistic behavior all the time.
I would say people would help other people out most of the time without compensation. Someone comes over to your house, you offer them food. They're not starving, it's just a nice thing to do. Hell offer a drink to go with that food and a bed if they'd like to stay the night. Perhaps I'm mad and this isn't how other people think...
This mind set of letting money do all the talking is beyond my ability to accept. It also boggles my mind how people arbitrarily draw lines. Human life has no more intrinsic value than anything else when held up to the massive void that is our universe. But damn it, if they'res one thing we should be able to understand it's the plight of another one of our kind.
No ones life or lively hood should be decided on because of a payment or lack there of. Other countries seems to grasp this concept and have single payer systems for the obvious needs.
Yes, I understand it's about the here and now. That we must deal with what we have at this moment. But, what the hell people. How do you get to a better place/system if you just sit complacent and except that it's right because the contract said so?
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.
On October 05 2010 14:50 Railxp wrote: The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions.
Not only does this society not exist (nor has it ever existed), but you haven't stated (nor will you ever be able to) what prevents people from oppressing each other. Logic doesn't.
Free market fire department would raise the price of putting out a fire until they reach the threshhold of what the "customer" is willing to pay. There is no competition for that service in your voluntary, non-coercive world because a monopoly is eventually going to control all the resources needed to extinguish fires.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
Maybe I'm just lacking info to how fire departments work, but what exactly can they monopolize? Water supply across the country? It just seems fairly unlikely that a private fire department could get to a point of perfect price discrimination.
As far as letting the guys house burn down, it seems like there should at least be a price he could pay, which I would imagine any successful private fire department would have. I don't even think it has to be perfectly lined up with insurance/odds because most people are probably risk averse in that kind of situation anyways.
I can definitely follow the calculated risk line of thinking, the economics is simple enough. But doesn't it feel cold and inhuman to you? They were at his house, they were actually there before the fire started. They had the means and everything, and while the guy was standing in front of them telling them he would pay whatever, they just let his house catch fire and burn down? I mean, forget the economic viewpoint, what ever happened to human decency? Charge the guy afterwards or something, but help him out!
How do you walk down the street? Suppose something stupid happens, you trip, hurt yourself, can't get up. Does it really work this way that everybody will just pass you by thinking: he didn't pay me to help him out? Really, you will be there on the ground, and nobody will call anyone for you, because you know, it costs money?
Or are there several firefighting services in town, and they are not going to be able to balance their budget and will lose competitively?
Forget the economics, it just feels very morally wrong, either that, or there is more to the story that is not being told here. Call me a pampered European who has social services for everything, I don't care, it feels very wrong for them to be there and let a house burn down while they are watching it.
Doesn't surprise me much in a country with such a desastrous health policy. Simply because that shows the amount of neoliberal asociality in parts of US politics, leading to such incredible events. I'm sorry for your right wing politicians responsible for such aberrations. FDP party of germany would like to have the same conditions, thank god they're down to 5% in surveys.
I scorn this disgusting rampaging form of extreme capitalism which contradicts any form of solidarity between citizens. And all those neoliberals responsible for this only to critizise extreme moderate people such as Obama as communists. Bet those are people who didn't have any friends as childs, now flocking together in disgusting political parties.
On October 05 2010 16:50 Condor wrote: I can definitely follow the calculated risk line of thinking, the economics is simple enough. But doesn't it feel cold and inhuman to you? They were at his house, they were actually there before the fire started. They had the means and everything, and while the guy was standing in front of them telling them he would pay whatever, they just let his house catch fire and burn down? I mean, forget the economic viewpoint, what ever happened to human decency? Charge the guy afterwards or something, but help him out!
How do you walk down the street? Suppose something stupid happens, you trip, hurt yourself, can't get up. Does it really work this way that everybody will just pass you by thinking: he didn't pay me to help him out? Really, you will be there on the ground, and nobody will call anyone for you, because you know, it costs money?
Or are there several firefighting services in town, and they are not going to be able to balance their budget and will lose competitively?
Forget the economics, it just feels very morally wrong, either that, or there is more to the story that is not being told here. Call me a pampered European who has social services for everything, I don't care, it feels very wrong for them to be there and let a house burn down while they are watching it.
Municipal firefighters aren't just bystanders on the street. If they put out the fire, they would be doing it on the clock with work resources, that's not volunteering but it's grounds for termination.
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.
On October 05 2010 16:50 Condor wrote: I can definitely follow the calculated risk line of thinking, the economics is simple enough. But doesn't it feel cold and inhuman to you? They were at his house, they were actually there before the fire started. They had the means and everything, and while the guy was standing in front of them telling them he would pay whatever, they just let his house catch fire and burn down? I mean, forget the economic viewpoint, what ever happened to human decency? Charge the guy afterwards or something, but help him out!
How do you walk down the street? Suppose something stupid happens, you trip, hurt yourself, can't get up. Does it really work this way that everybody will just pass you by thinking: he didn't pay me to help him out? Really, you will be there on the ground, and nobody will call anyone for you, because you know, it costs money?
Or are there several firefighting services in town, and they are not going to be able to balance their budget and will lose competitively?
Forget the economics, it just feels very morally wrong, either that, or there is more to the story that is not being told here. Call me a pampered European who has social services for everything, I don't care, it feels very wrong for them to be there and let a house burn down while they are watching it.
The thing is though, with your street example, you DO get something for helping people out even if it isn't money. You get a good feeling and perhaps some increased reputation/adoration from others as opposed to feeling guilty for not helping the person. In fact, if you really thought about it, you could probably put a money value on it. I'm sure there is some amount of cash you would take to walk by the person, hell you could even argue that by taking money that you could do MORE good by donating it somewhere.
Isn't it kind of irresponsible to let your payments on something you throughly depend on lapse? I don't understand why everybody is up in arms over the firefighters seeming lack of morals // greed while glossing over the lack of personal responsibility that caused this whole issue in the first place.
Fires generally don't randomly start in barrels either.....
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.
I think the position he claims to subscribe to is:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service UNLESS you will die in absence of said service
Which I think is not necessary a flawed or even that much of a self-inconsistent argument. Seeing as normally you certainly wouldn't give away food to someone who hadn't paid for it...unless they were starving to death. Call it irrational or whatever (many human impulses are). I think this would be the normal pattern of human behavior nonetheless.
By the way, I could easily flip your reductio ad absurdum argument using your claim that "Human life is worth more than the property has no bearing on the Insurance Policy." by casting your argument as:
Pay for service = Get service Don't pay for service = Don't get service unless you get harmed by withholding that service
And since you 99% of the time get harmed in some way by denial of service, that means get service if you don't pay in most cases.
To summarize: using the equal statements one could think there are only 2 tenable positions to argue from. However, that's oversimplifying the situation. And there's a middle ground between rigidly holding to contractual agreement and forcing altruistic behavior all the time.
I would say people would help other people out most of the time without compensation. Someone comes over to your house, you offer them food. They're not starving, it's just a nice thing to do. Hell offer a drink to go with that food and a bed if they'd like to stay the night. Perhaps I'm mad and this isn't how other people think...
This mind set of letting money do all the talking is beyond my ability to accept. It also boggles my mind how people arbitrarily draw lines. Human life has no more intrinsic value than anything else when held up to the massive void that is our universe. But damn it, if they'res one thing we should be able to understand it's the plight of another one of our kind.
No ones life or lively hood should be decided on because of a payment or lack there of. Other countries seems to grasp this concept and have single payer systems for the obvious needs.
Yes, I understand it's about the here and now. That we must deal with what we have at this moment. But, what the hell people. How do you get to a better place/system if you just sit complacent and except that it's right because the contract said so?
I can only say you are very very idealistic. Life is not easy, people do not always help others. It would be nice that the world is ideal but it isn't that is why there is rule set. Running a fire station cost a lot of money from buying very expensive life insurance for the fire fighters to updating equipments. People must pay the fees. Is it sad that the guy lost his house? Yes. But you know what? This is life. Think about it logically, there are not that many fires. Heck my grandparents are 80 years old and they never had a single fire accident in their house and they could have gone 80 years without paying . House burning down is a very small percentage of all the houses in US. Now if all the people only pay when their house get burned down who is supporting the firemen? Money must come from somewhere. That is why there is a fee from everyone to help support these firemen.
You can say im a hypocrite but I personally don't think so. I believe life is above any monetary value. Life should not depend on money or fee. Its like abortion opponents sometimes agree that in case of rape or incest or danger to the mother's life abortions could be performed. However, I do not see life and monetary items such as clothing and house as the same. If you took a risky not paying a fee for firefighters then don't expect them to save your monetary items.
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 17:26 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 17:26 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?
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 17:26 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 17:26 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 17:26 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.
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 17:26 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 17:26 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.
On October 05 2010 18:02 smileyyy wrote: 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.
So, just so I'm clear - if you've paid your service charge and then move to another property, do you have to pay a new service charge?
If so - then what if you never called the fire brigade in all your years of living at that first property? Could you request a refund for not using the service?
It seems like people are very quick to say, "no pay, no service", but what about the other way around?
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.
let me summarize what you've said so far and tell me if i've got it wrong:
1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy 2. here's a way firefighters can help the guy and still get money
my response to you: 1. it's not a fact 2. the solution you proposed is unfit and would not work
your response: you did not read my post
me: yes i did you did not read mine
you: i will take the moral high ground and ignore you even though i have not fully explained myself whatsoever. i will end with an opened ended argument implying that the argument i presented before was sufficient and you are incorrect in your assumption despite me not having provided a viable argument.
Everybody is so worked up about policy and economics. Maybe it's just because I don't live in the States, but how is it possible --- especially in such a highly litigious society --- that a firefighting service can knowingly do nothing when a fire may present the risk of spreading and causing damage to neighbouring property? Fires are easier to stop when small, so wouldn't stopping it prevent the risk of collateral damage which could give rise to liability?
Maybe it's just that in Australia we are used to fires starting huge bushfires capable of burning square kilometres of land and whole towns. Because the idea that firefighters won't put out fires when still small is completely ridiculous to me.
Okay so if nobody pays the firefighters beforehand how do they stay alive, buy a firetruck, train and stay on call all day to fight this fire that they make tons of money off of?
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.
you: 1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy
my response to you: 1. it's not a fact
What I actually said was,
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
You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate.
edit -
On October 05 2010 18:12 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Okay so if nobody pays the firefighters beforehand how do they stay alive, buy a firetruck, train and stay on call all day to fight this fire that they make tons of money off of?
Who's saying that nobody should pay the firefighters in advance? I'm not.
I'm saying that there should be measures in place to help those in need, even if they can't/didn't pay for it upfront. However, I'm also saying, 1) people who receive the service can be expected to provide payment after it has been performed, and 2) there should be incentives in place to ensure that most people will pay upfront.
This is how you help people that don't pay the fee:
Let's say in the city there are 1,000 people that don't pay the fee. At $75 each that is $75,000 they are missing out on each year. Now let's say of those 1,000 people they have 3 people whose houses catch fire and need to be put out. Those 3 people have to pick up the slack for all the other people that also didn't buy the insurance so each of them would have to pay $25,000 to have their house saved.
Of course nobody in that area probably has that kind of money so they should just get the money from taxes which is what most counties do I assume and we wouldn't have stupid problems like this.
I just cant believe what i am reading here. Stop acting like asshole and use your comon sense if you have one. This is why emergency service should be paid whit taxes and everyone get it.
On October 05 2010 18:02 smileyyy wrote: 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.
So, just so I'm clear - if you've paid your service charge and then move to another property, do you have to pay a new service charge?
If so - then what if you never called the fire brigade in all your years of living at that first property? Could you request a refund for not using the service?
It seems like people are very quick to say, "no pay, no service", but what about the other way around?
theres no " no service, so you get a refund" think of it as insurance rather than a service.
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.
you: 1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy
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
You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate.
But it's not about payment of the service fee!!! Do you think they let his house burn down over $75? If the fire department was funded by them going around and saving people's houses and then suing them for a $75 service fee do you know much money they would make per year? Like $600. That's not even enough to pay for the gas to drive to people's houses to save them.
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.
you: 1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy
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
You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate.
i have no problem if that's your opinion. you, however, responded to a post that i made trying to explain why logically it would make sense for the fire dept to let the guys house burn down. you then proceeded to try and appealed to emotion and morality when dealing with logic which is like mixing water and electricity. THEN you proceeded to call me out by implying i didnt read you post and THEN tried to end the dialogue with a snide remark and implying i am ignorant. come on kid.
Im wondering if the man usually pays the fee every month and just forgot this month, that would be shitty luck and a even shittier reason to let a house burn down over 75, more likely is that he never payed it, but it does make a big difference I think.
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital.
So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources.
People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters.
The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist.
On October 05 2010 18:22 besiger wrote: Im wondering if the man usually pays the fee every month and just forgot this month, that would be shitty luck and a even shittier reason to let a house burn down over 75, more likely is that he never payed it, but it does make a big difference I think.
it would definitely suck more for that man in particular, but it doesn't change their stance on it, because everyone would just start "forgetting" their fees
Fire service should be paid for through taxes, regardless of city borders (the closest city fire dept. can be dispatched, as it was here, in the event the house is slightly outside a city's border). On the federal or state level if needed.
Even sadder are the people defending this system. Let me guess, it would be unfair and socialist because rich people's taxes might end up going to put out a fire in a poor person's house? This country is done for. I'm getting out of here as soon as I finish college.
well if they *forget their fees* for months at a time then fine, but if for instance you have someone who has been paying all his fees up to this point for maybe years even, I dont know.
This system seems so flawed to me. Just pay the "fire-insurance" with your taxes and everything is fine instead of some retarded insurance system for something like this.
On October 05 2010 18:27 willeesmalls wrote: Workable solution:
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital.
So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources.
People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters.
The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist.
Fires don't come up consistently is the issue here. if there is a month with few to little fies- the department gets no money, and has to lay off workers, cut hours, cut supplies. Except, in a business that is 24/7, and protects against something that could lead to death, you need full time workers, and the best equipment.
Heres an example why this wouldnt work lets say in the summer , firefighters account for 70% of their business. and in the off seasons(that isn't summer) - firefighters do 30% of their business. If people plan around it, this business model may work However, due to variance, sometimes it may be 0-10% in the winter and sadly, you need at least 20% to maintain the minimum amount of workers. Spiral and crash and burn. goes teh business model
On October 05 2010 18:28 Hinanawi wrote: Fire service should be paid for through taxes, regardless of city borders (the closest city fire dept. can be dispatched, as it was here, in the event the house is slightly outside a city's border). On the federal or state level if needed.
Even sadder are the people defending this system. Let me guess, it would be unfair and socialist because rich people's taxes might end up going to put out a fire in a poor person's house? This country is done for. I'm getting out of here as soon as I finish college.
So think about that for a second. They should tax homeowners to put out fires. Homeowners should be willing to pay this. You KNOW you have a system that works on a monthly fee similar to a tax.
If they saved his house, a shitload of people would stop paying the fee. If that's the system you guys in USA chose to go for, then they made the right move.
In Croatia, you don't pay for fire department services, it serves every citizen the same and therefore is funded from the taxes. Plus there are numerous volounteering fire brigades here.
That was really fucking stupid by the fire department. Makes me angry that the government would condone this. Even if some idiot doesn't pay 75$ its really poor form to not help when you have the chance to help. On my ER month, I saw plenty of patients who cannot pay their full bill or only pay part of their bill. Do we not treat them??
I guess we wont once the government finishes the healthcare takeover. Sweet, less work for me!
jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid?
America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
On October 05 2010 18:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid?
Wow... Really? Are you reading anything that I write?
I don't know how you can't put it together - Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying.
I don't know if it's just a lack of imagination or just people desperately clinging to their original arguments, or if it's because they're getting defensive about the USA, but there are other systems that work also..
Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying.
On October 05 2010 18:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: jtype you're being awfully childish about this issue, you need to look at reality. How can a fire department have equipment and personnel to fight fires with if they're only paid after the fact? How can they prevent people from simply not paying if they have an obligation to put out every fire everywhere? What happens when they meet a person who can't cover their operating costs and hasn't paid?
Wow... Really? Are you reading anything that I write?
I don't know how you can't put it together - Giving help to those that haven't paid up-front doesn't necessarily equal everyone not paying.
I don't know if it's just a lack of imagination or just people desperately clinging to their original arguments, or if it's because they're getting defensive about the USA, but there are other systems that work also..
consider this: what are the chances that your house will catch on fire? are you still willing to pay monthly even if you don't have to and still get the same service?
are you willing to pay any amount given that you have a 1 in 1000 (random number here) chance of that investment pays off?
On October 05 2010 18:44 Sanguinarius wrote: That was really fucking stupid by the fire department. Makes me angry that the government would condone this. Even if some idiot doesn't pay 75$ its really poor form to not help when you have the chance to help. On my ER month, I saw plenty of patients who cannot pay their full bill or only pay part of their bill. Do we not treat them??
I guess we wont once the government finishes the healthcare takeover. Sweet, less work for me!
Was that really fucking stupid of the fire department or of the homeowner for not paying the fucking fee?
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
LOL you are terrible. excellent exit attempt by trying to turn this into a US vs the world flamefest.
I'm glad there is no such thing here. They have no choice but to help everyone which is as it should be for services such as police, ambulance and fire engines.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy.
Aren't they fighting wars all over the world for human rights? Isn't it pretty fucking inhuman to sit and watch. I can't understand how they can even think, Hey he didn't pay the fee, its not our problem" or the more likely "Let's teach those nonpaying scroungers a lesson"
76.5% americans are christians. love thy neighbor apparently is just a saying. "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
LOL you are terrible. excellent exit attempt by trying to turn this into a US vs the world flamefest.
A+ effort but 0/10
That honestly isn't/wasn't my intention at all. I'm not trying to turn this into a US vs the world argument, but I am slightly concerned that it already is one, as I'm not sure if a few people's motivations for defending these fire-fighters is based on a 'US vs the world' mentality.
The fact that you saw my comment as an attempt to do that only makes me wonder even more.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy.
The people who don't understand why you would let the house burn rather than pay a larger fine at the time of the burning don't understand what it costs. You are paying for 24 hour service of atleast 5 (or however many it requires) firefighters for the entire duration of its existence until it puts out your fire, at a national average of $32,000 per person. Then add in the cost of a fire truck, it's maintenance, and the other necessities, I highly doubt anyone will be paying over $200,000 when their house catches on fire (and that's just per year). Even if you paid the cost from the perspective of only the first person who's house catches fire has to pay large fine and then everyone after that pays the cost from that point forward, if they instead choose not to pay this outrageous sum, then the house burns down (or is saved for free), and the cost would be passed onto the second person who's house catches fire. And this entire time the fire department is racking up debt. In the case of paying when they come, there really are only two options: you're absurdly rich and can pay, or you can't pay. Enough can't pays happen, and then no one has firefighters (even the rich).
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
or... most countries outside of the US...
no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take.
See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy.
perhaps you misinterpreted their posts?
Perhaps you're right. I'd be happy if that was the case.
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
On October 05 2010 14:50 Railxp wrote: The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions.
Not only does this society not exist (nor has it ever existed), but you haven't stated (nor will you ever be able to) what prevents people from oppressing each other. Logic doesn't.
Free market fire department would raise the price of putting out a fire until they reach the threshhold of what the "customer" is willing to pay. There is no competition for that service in your voluntary, non-coercive world because a monopoly is eventually going to control all the resources needed to extinguish fires.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
First of all, just because something hasn't existed, doesnt mean it will not exist. For the longest time, slavery was common, and people would say "WELL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ALL MAH KOTTON WITHOUT SLAVES? U WILL KILL THE COTTON INDUSTRYYY!!" Well slavery is a moral issue that is just wrong. We will learn how to cope in a society without slavery after. Second, actually something like this HAS existed before. Iceland has had an anarchic society that lasted peacefully for 300 years. Thats around 4-6 generations. Further info on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities. "IT NEVAR EXISTED BEFORRR!!" is not a valid argument.
What prevents people from oppressing each other? What makes you think you arn't already oppressed as is? Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. You are currently either oppressing the minority, or are being oppressed already. You are being oppressed to pay for a war you do not favor. Even if you are pro-war, whatever you do not agree with the government doing, you still have to pay for it. How do you logically stop oppression? Level the whole playing field and diffuse the power. Dont let anyone else decide for you how you live, and dont decide for others how they should live. If a guy's house got burnt down, the problem is between him and the fire department. You cant then decide for everyone else that saving it after the fact is agreeable. Even with the ER saving people, there are patients who would dispute it and argue for the right of suicide, so a house would raise even more disputes.
I dont understand what you mean by "Logic Doesn't ?"
You argue against a monopoly on fire-control. And yet you blindingly miss the fact that the EXISTING program is a monopoly. And look at what this monopoly got you? You cannot argue against a monopoly and be in favor for a monopoly at the same time.
EVEN IF convergence into monopoly is inevitable, which i would dispute, at least you get a chance as a customer to object to or opt out for a better alternative. Also, without government protection, a monopoly won't exist. If they didnt make starting your own fire department illegal, there would be nothing to stop you from driving your own water tank around town to try to beat them to the fire and then advertise your cheaper alternative to people. And if you did and were allowed to do that, I'm certain you would have saved this guy's house and he would be your lifelong customer now. A monopoly can't possibly control all the resources for this. You are saying one company will dominate all the water in the world and not let anyone have any unless they approve? Either it will have to be dirt cheap, or they will be torn down by people like you and me who won't accept such treatment. And without EVERYONE in the country paying for their security/mob force, they wont be able to do squat about the people who object. As is, the US government which takes roughly 15-30% of everyone's income, has military bases all over the world, and is regarded as the sole super-power in the world, and yet cannot even have a competent crime force to protect its own capital from being ravaged by crimes.
Also, private police forces already exist. Many college campuses have their own police. Many banks have their own guards. Many residencies have their own security force. All of these operate better, are less corrupt, and have faster reaction time than any state police. All of these strive to operate on prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention.
----- Edit:
After reading the wiki a little more:
Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.
So even if you dispute the rest of my arguments, you will at least have to cede to me your first point that private fire-fighting has never existed. :p
I'm not saying that unicorns and rainbows follow from such a society, just that each individual person would have a lot more influence on their own lives instead of the current system.
That is NOT the policy of the US. Most everywhere firefighting service is paid for by compulsory taxes you don't get to opt-out of. Its certainly the case where I live in a rural, conservative state/county/city. Even if the firefighters themselves are volunteers, the trucks, training, call stations etc. are paid by the taxes. In cities, it pretty much has to be mandatory because if house A is 10 feet from house B and one catches fire, the other will as well. There's no feasible way to let the house of someone who opted-out to burn down without it spreading incurring massive risk. If the man's house were in a more densely populated area, I have no doubt that government would have found a way to mandate his participation in fire protection via taxes. In this instance, though, because the man lived out in the country, outside the city limits and in a county that had no county-wide fire protection (closest was the city of South Fulton, pop 2500) he couldn't be taxed by the city to provide the fire service. Therefore, the city offered him the ability to opt-in for 75$/year. It seems to me that the problem is that fire protection was not being provided at a level of government that could levy taxes on the man: the county.
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
Residents of cities are taxed to fund their local fire dept. he was not within the city boundaries and did not have to pay the local tax. he was still, however, given the chance to pay for the service and chose not to.
Funny people in this thread, trying to defend their broke insane capitalistic system.
I don't doubt that if there was someone trapped inside they would have jumped in to try to save them if at all possible, but hey you don't pay the piper he'll fuck you up.
They called 7 times, they did not react, how did they know noone was trapped inside?
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.
Thats so wrong in itself, you think people should get rescued from fires, but not from cureable deseases if they are from a poor family?
Deeper issue is why is the fire department run like this? By that I mean, why is funding for fire department being paid for out of pocket and not part of the city's expenses? Surely such basic civic protection should be paid for by the government through taxes and not "pay if you want/can otherwise we'll watch your house burn down".
- because they live to far outside the city
Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
-why? because once a year a house on the landside of the city catches fire and they can't found themselves with taxes they already got + a large amount for the gas spent to travel farther out of town? that what so called economics call economy is crime. simply crime (mafia blackmales as well)
Moreover, saving everyone's houses regardless of if they paid or not is also unreasonable, because then there would be no reason to pay if there were no consequences. Sure, it sucks that his house got burnt down, but if he didnt pay for the service, he shouldn't get the benefits.
Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to charge him 75000 later after the fact because then the fire department is forcing its service on people who never wanted it. Its like the bug exterminator busted down your door and killed a small trail of ants in your kitchen and then charged you 75000 for it. Even if they only charged u the base rate, say 75, it would still be unjust because you never wanted their service in the first place. Maybe you think a 15$ can of bugspray could have done the job and you were just out of your house buying said can.
1. totally unreasonable to put out a fire as firefighters ,yes
2. They called, they wanted help. I don't think firefighters can watch every house everytime and instantly fight the fires -> your argument is invalid
If the firefighters put out the fire or tried to take money from the man for doing it, they could've all lost their jobs or maybe even went to jail for extortion, no matter the intention.
So you think that accepting a system where you get sent to jail for helping other people for free is justification to not do so, you are weak.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
actually police/jails are already often replaced by private services, wellcome to today.
Welcome to the real world where nothing is either black or white. Basically, we dont have enough resource to make everything perfect, so we go with decisions with the best expected/guestimated outcome.
x , they had the recourcess, and we go with the decisions those who own something make to own more - I would argue if this is the best outcome.
You can't pay $250 after you crash your car to get insurance to fix $10,000 in repair costs because that's cheating the system, and the pool of money that the cost of repairs is coming from is supposed to be filled in part by your monthly payments. It's the same idea here.
I get the feeling you live in a car, don't you?
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.
Yeah, they arn't retarded assholes, they are cruel inhuman assholes who choosed the wrong profession.
Remember that thread arguing for Anarcho Capitalism?
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
Cost of putting out the fire /= infinite. That's not a good comparison.
In a world where people's lives, homes, pets, belongings, etc. don't matter, then yes, the fire department made the right decision.
The guy should have paid. No one's arguing that. Does that mean he deserves to watch as his house burns down along with everything he owns while his pets are still trapped inside as well? I find it hard to believe that people are saying, "yes."
Was it a fiscally appropriate decision? Sure. However, from a moral standpoint, it's "evil" what happened there.
It is fiscally more responsible for us to simply let people die who cannot afford healthcare, is it not? However, again, from a moral standpoint, that does not make it the right choice.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
On October 05 2010 18:27 willeesmalls wrote: Workable solution:
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital.
So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources.
People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters.
The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist.
Fires don't come up consistently is the issue here. if there is a month with few to little fies- the department gets no money, and has to lay off workers, cut hours, cut supplies. Except, in a business that is 24/7, and protects against something that could lead to death, you need full time workers, and the best equipment.
Heres an example why this wouldnt work lets say in the summer , firefighters account for 70% of their business. and in the off seasons(that isn't summer) - firefighters do 30% of their business. If people plan around it, this business model may work However, due to variance, sometimes it may be 0-10% in the winter and sadly, you need at least 20% to maintain the minimum amount of workers. Spiral and crash and burn. goes teh business model
You can always try to model the occurrences of fire and create a plan for maximal coverage. If the plan is infeasible (requires more resources than it can get in return), there will simply be no firefighters.
Obviously the best way to do this is to socialize firefighting. But given that firefighting is privatized, at least partially in this situation - the expectation for the firefighters to be charitable is unrealistic.
There are limits in socialist organization as well. There are occasions in southern california where many forests and houses burn because firefighting resources were insufficient to deal with the fire quickly. Does it make sense to have those resources on standby?
Again it's a question of practicality. In this specific situation, the private group of firefighters decided it was impractical to fight that fire. Given their occupation, I highly doubt they were sneering at the family as the house burned.
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.
This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments.
I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
lol reminds me of that story of some rich Roman dude who had all the teh slaves with buckets and whenever there was a fire he would get over there and wouldn't put out the fire unless the owner paid up. Oh and he also made the neighbors pay up too as their homes were in danger as well. Only difference is, this Roman guy actually did eventually put out the fires when the owners offered a good price and had paid.
Eventually he was killed when some badder dudes poured molten silver down his throat to satisfy his "lust for money".
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.
This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments.
I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers.
The property was not in city limits.
The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do?
How's the free market to blame if a municipal institution doesn't do what you want? These firefighters were municipal... tax-paid. If they weren't, I'd argue they would love to take any "I'll pay whatever it takes" calls as possible. But it's precisely because they're subsidized that they generally service less.
On October 05 2010 19:40 Loanshark wrote: lol reminds me of that story of some rich Roman dude who had all the teh slaves with buckets and whenever there was a fire he would get over there and wouldn't put out the fire unless the owner paid up. Oh and he also made the neighbors pay up too as their homes were in danger as well. Only difference is, this Roman guy actually did eventually put out the fires when the owners offered a good price and had paid.
Eventually he was killed when some badder dudes poured molten silver down his throat to satisfy his "lust for money".
Actually the Roman Fire Brigade purchased all the houses surrounding the fire because their value suddenly plummeted as they were about to be destroyed, they then put out the fire and sold the houses to make a huge profit.
I think you might be thinking of the Spanish governor that was killed by the Jivaro tribe by having molten gold poured down his throat till his bowels burst open, or maybe it happened to both these people.
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
Residents of cities are taxed to fund their local fire dept. he was not within the city boundaries and did not have to pay the local tax. he was still, however, given the chance to pay for the service and chose not to.
This is AMAZING, I cant even put together words to describe how mindblowingly awesome this is, I mean you need to account for the fact that theres a lot of stupid people over there, this system is bound to make someone somewhere watch their house burn with firefighters mocking them for being cheap.
But its a necessary evil, for every idiot crying over his burning house and the firefighters inaction you will get a whole town paying their tax normally as they always did .... wait what?
Yep, making a point with someones burning house and playing "sorry cant do" is a childrens game, I hope he ends up suing the town in your legal system where anyone can sue anyone over anything and wins millions of dollars so he can rebuild his life and forget about this sad episode.
Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote: America, fuck yeah! Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw. I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
Residents of cities are taxed to fund their local fire dept. he was not within the city boundaries and did not have to pay the local tax. he was still, however, given the chance to pay for the service and chose not to.
This is AMAZING, I cant even put together words to describe how mindblowingly awesome this is, I mean you need to account for the fact that theres a lot of stupid people over there, this system is bound to make someone somewhere watch their house burn with firefighters mocking them for being cheap.
But its a necessary evil, for every idiot crying over his burning house and the firefighters inaction you will get a whole town paying their tax normally as they always did .... wait what?
Yep, making a point with someones burning house and playing "sorry cant do" is a childrens game, I hope he ends up suing the town in your legal system where anyone can sue anyone over anything and wins millions of dollars so he can rebuild his life and forget about this sad episode.
evidently not, as this guys house burned down ;o quick google search would help you realize this isnt a standalone incident
Even if the town did pay all their fees except for thsi one person, if firefighters had let his house nto burn down, the town would suddenly stop paying their fees, there's no incentive to do so.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
Whether one thinks that firefighting should be a public service or not, it seems rather clear to me that this city is doing it wrong. Whatever the city thinks it is selling, it sure is no insurance. The purpose of an insurance is to protect the customer from financial risk, not grant/deny him access to the service itself. Imagine an optional health insurance system, where doctors are only allowed to treat patients which pay insurance fees, but not patients who want to pay themselves. Exactly what kind of "option" would that be? This seems to be rather comparable to a subscription based service. But a subscription based service with a flat fee irrespective of risk or direct cost for a "virtual" service which may very well never be provided? Seriously?
Any community/city/county/country who voluntarily organizes its firefighting like this should damn well have to pay up for any damages to the property of people who don't want to participate in this nonsense.
On October 05 2010 18:44 Sanguinarius wrote: That was really fucking stupid by the fire department. Makes me angry that the government would condone this. Even if some idiot doesn't pay 75$ its really poor form to not help when you have the chance to help. On my ER month, I saw plenty of patients who cannot pay their full bill or only pay part of their bill. Do we not treat them??
I guess we wont once the government finishes the healthcare takeover. Sweet, less work for me!
Was that really fucking stupid of the fire department or of the homeowner for not paying the fucking fee?
The fire department. As I said. Do I not take care of patients who don't pay? "Oh, I am sorry, you just lost 3 liters of blood in a car crash. Looks like you dont pay your government fee.... guess we will just let you die.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
so you're saying that everything is ok as long as your boss tells you to? Policy or not, law or not, firefighters not helping people save their home is wrong. By their logic policemen shouldn't help homeless people that are assaulted right in front of them because they don't pay for the "service".
Sure the family should've paid but there are other ways, e.g. just give them a bill over 5000$. Thats still about 65 years of the annual amount they'd had to pay
This is so stupid that I have no words for it. On some level I can understand the principals, but when it comes to this its just weird. Why people have to pay to have people save their houses from fire is the real stupid thing here. Some things should be left up to the government.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
Yes, I was and Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states:
Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
So was the order to not respond to the 911 call, or the order to save the neighbor's yard but not the house a lawful order? I would argue as there is no one in the house in danger it is in fact, a lawful order and the courts would likely agree.
Notice I quoted the whole thing, I could have skimped but I think section three brings up an interesting conversation as to whether or not it was dereliction of duty.
I know you say, "Who the fuck cares about orders". In any organization where you are putting your life at risk chain of command matters. In a burning warehouse when an order to pull out comes the firefighters need to respond unquestioning to prevent further loss of life. It's there for the protection of the firefighters as well as people in the community.
Look, I agree the fire should have been put out but the blame shouldn't be on the everyday firefighters there just doing their job. The blame lies with their superiors that put the policy in place and chose not to ignore it in this instance. It also falls at the feet of the property owner who didn't pay the fee. A fee which is really a tax, but people don't like the word "tax" so they don't use it.
Deal with the fire, then charge him. Dont show up and just stand there doing nothing while the house burns down. Being a firefighter shouldnt be all about the money. They disrespect their profession as well as thier fellow firefighters by doing what they did. Thats enough reason to get fired imo.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
so you're saying that everything is ok as long as your boss tells you to? Policy or not, law or not, firefighters not helping people save their home is wrong. By their logic policemen shouldn't help homeless people that are assaulted right in front of them because they don't pay for the "service".
Sure the family should've paid but there are other ways, e.g. just give them a bill over 5000$. Thats still about 65 years of the annual amount they'd had to pay
-im saying its your job or this mans house, who would choose the latter?
-Then everyone would opt for the 5,000$ bill and there are suddenly no more firefighters.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
You do realize that me being fired is much less of a problem than this guy losing his home? Besides I would make a call to court about this issue then, and unless the system isn't totally retarded (questionable in the US it seems) I would keep my job. I would also be sure to have the support of the man whose house I saved, and most likely media and public too. "firefighter fired for fighting fire", yeah sounds funny.
I am assuming that at least half those firefighters are going to church every now and then (US, rural area?). While I don't consider myself a christian, I do appreciate most of the morals/ethics that go with it. One of the important ones is to help those around you when in need. Unconditionally.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
so you're saying that everything is ok as long as your boss tells you to? Policy or not, law or not, firefighters not helping people save their home is wrong. By their logic policemen shouldn't help homeless people that are assaulted right in front of them because they don't pay for the "service".
Sure the family should've paid but there are other ways, e.g. just give them a bill over 5000$. Thats still about 65 years of the annual amount they'd had to pay
-im saying its your job or this mans house, who would choose the latter?
-Then everyone would opt for the 5,000$ bill and there are suddenly no more firefighters.
- I would. Without hesitation.
- Wrong. There are plenty of optional insurances available for example against lightning damage etc. At least here in Germany many people prefer to pay a low fee for the insurance than running the risk of losing a huge sum of money because of bad luck. Besides, there always is the option of a mandatory fee included in taxes. Not exactly what straight up egocentric capitalists ("I am too good to be struck by fate/ever need any help") prefer, but if you have a social aspect to your system then that's perfectly fine.
That is truly something disgraceful. As much as I like to rag on the stretcher fetchers, they still have a duty to do. Paramedics and Firefighters don't get paid great money, I would say Police too but they make substantially more here than us two. I'm not saying it's about money, quite the opposite. I didn't become a Paramedic to make the big dollars, it's not going to happen. Most of the Firefighters I know are in the same boat, they didn't become Firefighters to make a lot of money, we do it because we want to help people and that thought of helping people takes a huge slap in the face here.. Ouch.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
You do realize that me being fired is much less of a problem than this guy losing his home? Besides I would make a call to court about this issue then, and unless the system isn't totally retarded (questionable in the US it seems) I would keep my job. I would also be sure to have the support of the man whose house I saved, and most likely media and public too. "firefighter fired for fighting fire", yeah sounds funny.
I am assuming that at least half those firefighters are going to church every now and then (US, rural area?). While I don't consider myself a christian, I do appreciate most of the morals/ethics that go with it. One of the important ones is to help those around you when in need. Unconditionally.
not everyone has the financial stability to lose their job, and instead of looking for a new job, spend time and money to fight for your old job back your argument about calling court, etc. to get it back is admirable, but in the end its a risk(you make it sound like success is guaranteed) most people don't want/ can't take. I know nothing about the US court system, so i'll leave it at that.
On October 05 2010 20:51 MacDo wrote: You will not getting fired for this. If training a firefighter is this expensive you will get only a warning.
facts, news or statement that you are indeed a supervisor for a department of firefighters? i just based my assumption you get fired off of previous experience and common sense, Sure training a firefighter is expensive but in this case the collateral damage you get from burning this guys down(via people who don't pay fees) is higher. Therefore i assumed he would get fired
Yeah,I think we also shouldn't take care of patient who are helicoptered in - cause they weren't in city limits.
Unless we can take their organs after they pass away and give it to my own city's residents.... Let me ask you, does that make sense?
The answer is No. Its stupid. Just like refusing to fight a fire.
I think you're missing my point. My point is don't blame the guys that put their lives on the line on a daily basis to save others. Blame the home owner for not paying the fee, their superiors for not telling them to put the fire out, the policy makers for allowing this to happen in the first place, and the voters for electing those policy makers.
In the post of mine your quoting I'm responding to someone that agrees with s post stating that this should be left up to the city government. Implying that this is some private fire fighting firm. It is not it's a municipal service.
Ok, well this guy's house wasn't in the city limits and he chose not to pay the tax to give him services from the city government. The firefighters wouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place if the county commissioners were doing their job and looking out for the well being of their constituents and taxing all of them to provide county wide fire services.
I also would like those not in the U.S. to understand that this is not an issue of us privatizing basic services, but one of jurisdiction and how we pay for government services.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him? i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case
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.
Well yeah in Finland it works that way and it's quite efficient =P
This is really silly to be honest, this would actually be illegal in Finland. If you see someone in need for help and if you are capable of helping, it's illegal to not help and you might go to jail for it.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him? i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case
Why should I receive a service I didn't pay for while you don't receive the same service that you did pay for at the same time? Firefighting is a service, yes a basic one, but still a service that has to be paid for.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
On October 05 2010 20:35 spinesheath wrote:You do realize that me being fired is much less of a problem than this guy losing his home? Besides I would make a call to court about this issue then, and unless the system isn't totally retarded (questionable in the US it seems) I would keep my job. I would also be sure to have the support of the man whose house I saved, and most likely media and public too. "firefighter fired for fighting fire", yeah sounds funny.
I am assuming that at least half those firefighters are going to church every now and then (US, rural area?). While I don't consider myself a christian, I do appreciate most of the morals/ethics that go with it. One of the important ones is to help those around you when in need. Unconditionally.
It's funny you should mention unconditionally helping those in need... In America, lately there have been more than a few cases where a Good Samaritan gets arrested or sued for helping. It's ridiculous- and 9 times outta 10 I'm sure the person you help would be supremely grateful; but if you are that 1 time outta 10, and get sued by the son of an elderly woman you tried to help who slipped on the ice- you are gonna be pretty mad that helping people unconditionally landed you a fat bill...
I'm not trying to say that what the firefights did was right (personally I think they are giant douchebags for what they did...). I lived in a rural town when I was a kid, and the fire department was full volunteers, paid for by the townspeople. The only person in town who didn't pay for it was the dude who owned the dairy farm out in BFE; and his farm burnt to the ground. The fire department showed up to put it out anyway, and dude beat them back with a stick...
Some people want help, and they'll ask for it if they want it. Some people need help, and will refuse it until they have a dire need of it...
Imagine the fire department had put that dudes fire out. What if something were broken during the fire being put out? Excessive line pressure could have spilled the barrel, which probably had some kind of pesticide or fertilizer in it if it burned the barrel to the ground over a 2 hour period before reaching the house. He could turn around and sue the fire department for causing more damage than they stopped because he has no contract with them. It's a double edged sword, volunteer work... =0\
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him? i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case
Why should I receive a service I didn't pay for while you don't receive the same service that you did pay for at the same time? Firefighting is a service, yes a basic one, but still a service that has to be paid for.
except if the fire department knew your house was on fire and the guy who didnt pay , they wouldve went to yours? i honestly am not getting the point of your question, so my point still stands, he just got unlucky.
I am mystified that he didn't just dig a fire break around the barrels and save the house himself if it started from a single source and spread slowly. :-\
On October 05 2010 21:15 Antisocialmunky wrote: I am mystified that he didn't just dig a fire break around the barrels and save the house himself if it started from a single source and spread slowly. :-\
same reason he didnt save his pets from dying, or pay the fee, hes a fucking retard.
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.
Precisely. I'm baffled that some states and places don't do this on some government level.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas.
I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city.
The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources.
I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for.
And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas.
I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city.
The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources.
I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for.
And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station.
On October 05 2010 20:51 MacDo wrote: You will not getting fired for this. If training a firefighter is this expensive you will get only a warning.
facts, news or statement that you are indeed a supervisor for a department of firefighters? i just based my assumption you get fired off of previous experience and common sense, Sure training a firefighter is expensive but in this case the collateral damage you get from burning this guys down(via people who don't pay fees) is higher. Therefore i assumed he would get fired
No, just assuming from my experience in federal revenue agency. If I start fire people who made mistake or do something against my "orders" every time. I will loss huge amount of time to retrain someone to be able to do the job. Just more simple to me to warn him next time he do this he is cut. This work for almost all business (time = money).
Plus firefighter are already paid to be here, why not helping this guys ? You need to be extremely selfish to refuse give him help.
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?
This, pretty much.
If I had a choice between helping someone out who was unwilling to pay a small fee for my service, and risking my job...
or
Being a douchebag and being able to keep my family fed
I'd take number 2.
On October 05 2010 21:25 Glasse wrote: Wtf you guys have to pay firefighters? I think they get our money from taxes or something
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.
Well yeah in Finland it works that way and it's quite efficient =P
This is really silly to be honest, this would actually be illegal in Finland. If you see someone in need for help and if you are capable of helping, it's illegal to not help and you might go to jail for it.
Imposing a heavy fine and saving the guy's house? Imo, that's really a bad idea. The probability of a house catching fire is very low which would have home owners thinking:
"hey, i don't need to pay this shitty fee since I'm probably not going to need this service anyway! Say, even my house starts burning like hell the firefighters would still help me out if I shove a ton of money down their throats. So yeah, I soooo don't need to pay this".
You probably only need about 20% of the population thinking like this to put the fire brigade out of business.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas.
I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city.
The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources.
I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for.
And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station.
you realize they were only there because of the neighbor- who had paid the fee- was at risk. Otherwise they wouldve just bailed
I do, but is that the right call?
Take the neighbor out of the equation and you can get to the philosophy of the situation. Imagine the neighbor's house was on the other side of the city, or county, or state.
Should they have responded in the initial calls? If you're the mayor of a city who has to potentially deal with liability issues of sending your fire department to fight a fire out of it's jurisdiction leaving your city unprotected do you make the same call? Once it get's to the person that's paid the fee making the call you send them, but should they have gone earlier?
This specific case is fucked up and a failure of the policy makers that let it get to this point, but the overarching question is one of how basic services are paid for and when do those resources get expended? If the fire department is fighting a fire at a rural house that's not in their jurisdiction should they drop everything and let that house burn if a call comes from inside their jurisdiction? Or do they stay where they're at? Are they doing a disservice to the taxpayers that paid for the service it they choose to stay at the rural house?
My answer is yes, they should have responded to the initial 911 calls. If a fire was to break out somewhere else you manage your resources the best you can to fight both, but I'm not sure what to do if I have to make a choice. If you can only save one which do you save? It's a question that I'm not sure I have the answer to and one I'm interested to see what people think.
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.
This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments.
I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers.
The property was not in city limits.
The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do?
The property was not in city limits. Yes, I know and I really, really, REALLY couldn't care less. In Europe even firedepartments of neigbouring countries come to eachothers aid when needed. Just sent him the bill for manpower, vehicel cost etc.
And that should have been the end of the discussion imo.
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?
This, pretty much.
If I had a choice between helping someone out who was unwilling to pay a small fee for my service, and risking my job...
or
Being a douchebag and being able to keep my family fed
I'd take number 2.
I agree with this, and you have to take some responsibility of your own, if i am to cheap to insure my car i should not whine if i crash it and dont get any money. If i am to cheap to pay for firefighting service i should not whine if my house burns down and the firefighters dont help out.
If i was a firefighter in this position with a wife and kids to support i would not risk my job saving the property of someone who made the choise to not pay for my help in case he needed it.
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
But, to avoid situations like this firefighting should always be tax-funded and mandatory, and free for thoose unable to pay taxes due to no income or similar. Same with healthcare in my opinion.
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?
This, pretty much.
If I had a choice between helping someone out who was unwilling to pay a small fee for my service, and risking my job...
or
Being a douchebag and being able to keep my family fed
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
You do realize that me being fired is much less of a problem than this guy losing his home? Besides I would make a call to court about this issue then, and unless the system isn't totally retarded (questionable in the US it seems) I would keep my job. I would also be sure to have the support of the man whose house I saved, and most likely media and public too. "firefighter fired for fighting fire", yeah sounds funny.
I am assuming that at least half those firefighters are going to church every now and then (US, rural area?). While I don't consider myself a christian, I do appreciate most of the morals/ethics that go with it. One of the important ones is to help those around you when in need. Unconditionally.
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote: "Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)?
Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well.
On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote: Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...
They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment.
you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
so you're saying that everything is ok as long as your boss tells you to? Policy or not, law or not, firefighters not helping people save their home is wrong. By their logic policemen shouldn't help homeless people that are assaulted right in front of them because they don't pay for the "service".
Sure the family should've paid but there are other ways, e.g. just give them a bill over 5000$. Thats still about 65 years of the annual amount they'd had to pay
-im saying its your job or this mans house, who would choose the latter?
-Then everyone would opt for the 5,000$ bill and there are suddenly no more firefighters.
- I would. Without hesitation.
It's so easy to throw away a career when you don't actually have to spend the thousands of dollars and years of education to get your certification and find employment.
I'm sure when you get fired and your home gets foreclosed and your family is out on the street at least your children will be proud that their father stood by his morals to save some stranger's life house.
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?
Lol, arson teams.
Anyway, I'm sure if a person was trapped in there they would have done something about it.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
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.
This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments.
I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers.
The property was not in city limits.
The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do?
The property was not in city limits. Yes, I know and I really, really, REALLY couldn't care less. In Europe even firedepartments of neigbouring countries come to eachothers aid when needed. Just sent him the bill for manpower, vehicel cost etc.
And that should have been the end of the discussion imo.
Yes, and that happens here all the time as well. I was in San Diego, California when brush fires wiped out entire portions of the county including a lot of houses with loss of life and that fire was fought by fire crews from all over the country.
But you're arguing that the firefighters should lose their jobs and the homeowner should receive compensation when he chose not to pay for fire services. The fire should have been put out, but it isn't he fault of the fire fighters that it wasn't and he shouldn't receive compensation from the city that they didn't put the fire out. He made a personal choice and paid the price. I hope he had insurance on the house at least.
The guy didn't pay the $75 in the first place you really think he's going to pay the thousands the bill would cost?
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. And since he was willing to pay "Any price necessary" to get the to stop it afterwords, he had the money for insurance.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
On October 05 2010 22:13 sk` wrote: Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
They were there incase the person next to him's house caught fire. If they weren't there, and the person next door's house caught fire, when he paid, then it would be an issue.
This is just wrong to begin with. Fire Departments should be paid by the city via taxes and not with some fee. I mean there is absolutely NO reason for anyone not to pay that apart from forgetting it or being completely retarded - no one is going to be able put out a major fire by themselves, so everybody is going to need that service.
As soon as the fire department is run like a company, things like this can happen. And i can see how someone can argue that they did nothing wrong in letting this mans house burn down. If you look at it like if you are running a company, then sure, it would actually be a wrong move to put out the fire, since that would send out the message that nobody needs to pay that fee, because you're going to do your job anyways. It is still fucked up pretty badly if you look at it from a moral perspective.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them.
On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
On October 05 2010 22:14 x2mirko wrote: This is just wrong to begin with. Fire Departments should be paid by the city via taxes and not with some fee. I mean there is absolutely NO reason for anyone not to pay that apart from forgetting it or being completely retarded - no one is going to be able put out a major fire by themselves, so everybody is going to need that service.
As soon as the fire department is run like a company, things like this can happen. And i can see how someone can argue that they did nothing wrong in letting this mans house burn down. If you look at it like if you are running a company, then sure, it would actually be a wrong move to put out the fire, since that would send out the message that nobody needs to pay that fee, because you're going to do your job anyways. It is still fucked up pretty badly if you look at it from a moral perspective.
The fire department was paid for by the city via taxes. This property was not part of the city. For legal purposes it might as well been in the middle of Antarctica. Or asking you to send your firefighters from Germany to put out a house fire in Australia. Keep in mind we're talking legal purposes.
The city doesn't even have to provide fire services outside of it's city limits, but wanted to cover a larger area in the county since there was no county fire services. The city wants those people to pay for that service just like residents inside the city do, which is I think reasonable.
On October 05 2010 22:13 sk` wrote: Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
Try reading the article and maybe you will find an answer to your question.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
He had the money =\
Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason, you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching?
Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings?
Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house?
People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them.
On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
He had the money =\
Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching?
Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings?
Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house?
People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time.
What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out.
I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems)
Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone.
On October 05 2010 14:35 Ecrilon wrote: Should probably have just accepted extraordinarily high payment instead of letting the house burn. Those things are expensive.
But seriously - it would have had to be VERY high. Somebody above said something about charging the guy triple, which would be a complete joke. People in that town are buying insurance for $75, because even if it's very unlikely that their house catches fire this year, it's worth paying to stop that small possibility of disaster. Once the house is actually on fire, fire protection is no longer worth $75ish to the guy - it's worth the entire cost of his house, since that's what he'll lose without their help. If a last minute deal were going to happen, they should hit him for at LEAST the entire cost of the truck / firefighters being there (probably quite expensive) and I'd call them justified in charging basically anything (up to the cost of the house, of course).
Also, people should stop acting like it matters that they were nearby. This is a big decision in either direction; "well, they were already in the neighborhood" is not a justification that should matter.
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.
Yeah I am just confused how this happened (could really listen to audio)
Only thing I could think of is that it was out of the city limits, and this is bumfuck TN. But even still, at least around here, other towns and cities don't even hesitate to help if needed.
In Denmark taxes pay for our hospital, police and fire-fighter services... I like Denmark...
Honestly, if this ever occurred in my vicinity I would be disgusted, sure he is a dumb-ass who deserved what he got, but ultimately it is the country's fault as a whole for letting such a crucial service being 'optional'.
You're missing the point, it's not the private company's job to be sympathetic to some guy that isn't their client and it would ruin their business to save his house because immediately everyone stops paying the monthly fee when they realize they can switch to per-incident.
We're not judging the person at all, we're saying that if they save this man's house they have a lot of problems worth more than this man's house that they will incur. Is it their fault for not saving his house at the expense of their jobs?
On October 05 2010 14:35 Ecrilon wrote: Should probably have just accepted extraordinarily high payment instead of letting the house burn. Those things are expensive.
But seriously - it would have had to be VERY high. Somebody above said something about charging the guy triple, which would be a complete joke. People in that town are buying insurance for $75, because even if it's very unlikely that their house catches fire this year, it's worth paying to stop that small possibility of disaster. Once the house is actually on fire, fire protection is no longer worth $75ish to the guy - it's worth the entire cost of his house, since that's what he'll lose without their help. If a last minute deal were going to happen, they should hit him for at LEAST the entire cost of the truck / firefighters being there (probably quite expensive) and I'd call them justified in charging basically anything (up to the cost of the house, of course).
Also, people should stop acting like it matters that they were nearby. This is a big decision in either direction; "well, they were already in the neighborhood" is not a justification that should matter.
It's not fire insurance, it's payment for fire services. $75 annually IS the cost.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them.
On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
He had the money =\
Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching?
Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings?
Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house?
People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time.
What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out.
I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems)
Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone.
It's commendable that you did what you did, in that situation, but it's not the same situation at all. If you'd called the fire brigade and they said that they were coming and on arrival didn't do anything, that would have been completely different to not being able to turn up at all.
He might have waited on their arrival and then, upon realising that they weren't going to do anything, might have realised that the fire was too much for him to handle alone. He might have just been so overwhelmed by the fact that he was being treated in this way, not quite believing that they were just going to watch his house burn to the ground, that he didn't think to take action.
There's really no point in comparing yourself to that guy. What if he had a profound fear of fire? What if he just panicked and didn't know what to do? Again, don't make snap judgements about people.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Except it took two hours for the fire to get from the barrels to the house, pretty sure they should have got the pets out, but expected the fire department to come save them.
I still want to know what person in this family set the fire without any type of fire break and why they're not getting a large portion of the blame for the whole situation.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them.
On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
He had the money =\
Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching?
Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings?
Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house?
People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time.
What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out.
I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems)
Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone.
It's commendable that you did what you did, in that situation, but it's not the same situation at all. If you'd called the fire brigade and they said that they were coming and on arrival didn't do anything, that would have been completely different to not being able to turn up at all.
He might have waited on their arrival and then, upon realising that they weren't going to do anything, might have realised that the fire was too much for him to handle alone. He might have just been so overwhelmed by the fact that he was being treated in this way, not quite believing that they were just going to watch his house burn to the ground, that he didn't think to take action.
There's really no point in comparing yourself to that guy. What if he had a profound fear of fire? What if he just panicked and didn't know what to do? Again, don't make snap judgements about people.
I'm not making snap judgments.
I'm following what the article said, specifically that the fire spread slowly starting from something away from his house.
As for comparing myself to the guy, you're the one who told me to, which is why I did.
That said, even if you know the firefighters are coming, why would you NOT let your animals out? He had PLENTY of time, and people calling the Firefighters pet killers due to this are kinda ignorant of what went on.
On October 05 2010 22:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw.
Well this could still be a tax. It just might be some really odd and archaic way of doing it.
Govts use all kind of crazy ways to alter the tax hike at the end of the year. For example, NJ has a cap of how much your property tax bill can go up each year (it used to be 4% and it's not 2.5 I believe, which goes real fast when you include contractual raises). To get around this, you either get a state waiver (get on your knees and blow the higher ups) or you get creative with your services.
For example, my city recently took sewer fees out of the tax bill and made it a separate payment. It's calculated outside of your normal tax bill. This means the state doesn't view it as a part of that 4% cap. I dont know because i didn't research, but there could be a similar situation there.
still dont make it any less shitty that they watched, but yeah
On October 05 2010 22:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw.
Well this could still be a tax. It just might be some really odd and archaic way of doing it.
He wasn't being taxed because he was outside city limits.
The people in the city are taxed for it.
Yeah it could be a shared services thing because TN is just so sparsely populated (the county that he's in is 60 people per square mile per wiki.... that includes several different towns and cities)
Typically, you have to pay separately for shared services, whether its the homeowner, the city or whatever.
If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT: Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
I mean really? You think this was okay? really? In germany you would have had the right to protect your home, so you could take over that fire equipment with violence and fight the fire yourself. If those firefighters were in Ireland or germany they would have gone to jail too... when you were able to save them from the crowd.
On October 05 2010 22:52 Silvanel wrote: If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT: Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
You get taxed for that. The guy that had his house burned down doesn't. It is a separate fee, and he did not pay it. Therefore, they didn't provide the service.....
Personally, I find this entire situation disgusting. The protection should be mandatory. But, because it isn't, the firefighters did the right thing.
I'm a believer that true capitalism screws the individual, and that true socialism ends up being stagnant, so a mix of the two is necessary for society to thrive. This type of situation simply reaffirms that belief, and lets me know that the USA is too capitalist still.....
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.
That's not the point. You're saying as a universal principle it should never be denied, so it should also be in the case even in a struggling company, correct? To the point where a company still might in certain (despite very unlikely) situations have to supply power to numerous clients that suddenly can't afford power for whatever reason, even if it propels the company into bankruptcy, destroys hundreds or thousands of jobs, and plummets an economy into an even deeper depression than it already is?
I just really dislike the entire concept of absolutes when it comes to economics, I honestly feel in today's age people are far too sympathetic with the consumer and want to blame the "big bad corporations" for everything. Don't get me wrong, a lot are selfish, etc. etc. but at the same time I always have a little less sympathy for those who plan their lives poorly.
Concerning this specific case of the woman dying, I feel like it definitely could have been handled better, although I'd have to know the specifics to comment more. I agree, I wouldn't have cut the power until exhausting all other alternatives (which I'm sure there were PLENTY) and being in an incredibly dire situation, which it sounds like neither happened/were the case. Anyways, the negative publicity probably hurt the company far more than the marginal amount they saved from letting the woman die.
Anyone who thinks that not helping out the guy when his house was going to burn was a good idea is a total douche bag. It doesn't matter if the guy forgot to pay or not, the fact of the matter is that they were there and could have saved the guys god damn house and chose not to. Congrats to all of those firefighters for just destroying someone's lively hood.
Did the firefighters destroy his livelihood or did he destroy it by setting that fire in a retardedly unsafe area? You live outside of city limits and don't pay the fire protection fee, you don't get fire protection services. Plain and simple. If the family is blaming the death of their animals on the firefighters they are fucking retarded, if you watch the video it took 2 hours for the damn thing to spread like 10 meters.
Welcome to USA's understanding of freedom. Under the current conditions the fire figther acted correctly. You could say the same thing for an executioner (just doing his job).
Watching as someone losses his possessions and not lift a finger? are you fucking serious? for 75$?.
Way to call yourself a greedy motherfucker. Fuck those firefighters.
It seems to me that this is wrong on so many society levels. I mean, he didn't pay the fee, he offered to pay whatever they asked, and yet they stood around and laughed and whatnot. Are you serious? talk about killing humanity with a flawed system. Fuck yeah America!
On October 05 2010 22:52 Silvanel wrote: If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT: Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
You get taxed for that. The guy that had his house burned down doesn't. It is a separate fee, and he did not pay it. Therefore, they didn't provide the service.....
Personally, I find this entire situation disgusting. The protection should be mandatory. But, because it isn't, the firefighters did the right thing.
I'm a believer that true capitalism screws the individual, and that true socialism ends up being stagnant, so a mix of the two is necessary for society to thrive. This type of situation simply reaffirms that belief, and lets me know that the USA is too capitalist still.....
So they do not have taxes in US? I bet they do. And this is exactly that kind of service You would expect is covered in taxes. For me its double paymen, once to governamnt in taxes and once in special fee to private contractor. Someone is getting screwed here (not that its something strange, its in the nature of government to screw people). Still i feel like its better to support the ones screwed by government rather than bashing someone for not paying even when we do not know anything about his situation and reasons behind it.
I think anyone supporting this kind of behavior (not helping while You could) should feel ashamed.
From my understanding, this man lived outside of town, in an area that the taxes from the town were not paid. So instead, the firefighters charged a fee of 75$..(instead of giving them free services... makes sense too me, the fire department must be paid. This man was dumb for not paying it, but they should have taken a large offer from him, sure does suck to watch your stuff burn down. They probably wouldn't let him re enter his house once part of the house was on fire, since then they would be obligated to go in too.
Fun fact, I'm in Nevada, but my mom was born in Fulton, Ky(fulton ky, and south fulton are on the border, main street divides them). VERY small town now, completely dead since the trains don't come through there anymore, they probably have a tough time keeping that fire department maintained, most of the properties are empty, and people there are generally really old.. most of the young people have moved away
Back in the day this is how fire fighting started. You had to pay for the service; and there were signs on the outside of your house telling them you had fire service. If you didn't, they didn't lift a finger.
On October 05 2010 23:50 Amestir wrote: Sure they may be legaly right. But moraly its so so wrong.
Don't even bother bringing this up, it's a waste of time and a foolhardy argument.
Also, I have no problem with the firefighters letting the man's house burn down. Like hey let's not pay until we absolutely need it, sorry but that's not how it works. Why? Because the 75 bucks that you didn't pay means that's 75 bucks less the fire dept. had to work with for other fires. You don't get to leech until you can't anymore.
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote: Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
On October 05 2010 22:13 sk` wrote: Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
They were there incase the person next to him's house caught fire. If they weren't there, and the person next door's house caught fire, when he paid, then it would be an issue.
Then they would be treating the fire as if it was a wild fire, in which case they would put it out; for free, by default. I mean, I'm pretty sure I've seen countless news stories about firefighters battling raging wild fires. I've never seen any news stories about firewatches doing so; thus, my original assessment of their profession stands.
The original information doesn't say anything about neighbors, and since it is a deep rural it is more likely no neighbors would be in immediate threat. The neighbor idea is something people have made up to support their douchbag stance of agreeing with the firewatchers.
Either way, I first posted that I was glad I don't live in the states anymore; I'm still very glad.
Everyone is jumping to the defense of the home owner, but what about the firefighters. What if they are only insured to put out fires at their "clients" properties. They would be risking their lives to put out this fire and if one of them was injured outside their coverage then they are on their own. Any equipment that got damaged would need to be replaced from the departments operating budget, which in every case I have ever heard of is very tight.
In most places I know of in the US the fire department is covered by local property taxes, but apparently in this area they elected to have lower property taxes at the expense of not having fire protection services.
What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Object on what ever moral grounds you may have, go on thinking that these people are scum for not putting out this fire, but at the end of the day you aren't going to go charging into a burning building, so at least realize what a hypocrite you are for judging people who do risk their lives for others on an occupational or volunteer basis.
if you didnt pay you deserve it. Here in my city firefighters ask for donations but they don't have a fee, the fee is included in the taxes...sometimes its better if the city policies weren't controlled that much.
It's really not all that different from charging hundreds of dollars for vary basic medical examinations/care without insurance. It's part of US culture.
This is a pretty fucked up incident. It's also an example of a pretty fucked up system.
On October 06 2010 00:00 sk` wrote: Either way, I first posted that I was glad I don't live in the states anymore; I'm still very glad.
On October 05 2010 22:52 Silvanel wrote: If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT: Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
You get taxed for that. The guy that had his house burned down doesn't. It is a separate fee, and he did not pay it. Therefore, they didn't provide the service.....
Personally, I find this entire situation disgusting. The protection should be mandatory. But, because it isn't, the firefighters did the right thing.
I'm a believer that true capitalism screws the individual, and that true socialism ends up being stagnant, so a mix of the two is necessary for society to thrive. This type of situation simply reaffirms that belief, and lets me know that the USA is too capitalist still.....
So they do not have taxes in US? I bet they do. And this is exactly that kind of service You would expect is covered in taxes. For me its double paymen, once to governamnt in taxes and once in special fee to private contractor. Someone is getting screwed here (not that its something strange, its in the nature of government to screw people). Still i feel like its better to support the ones screwed by government rather than bashing someone for not paying even when we do not know anything about his situation and reasons behind it.
I think anyone supporting this kind of behavior (not helping while You could) should feel ashamed.
They have taxes. This specific service was not part of those taxes..... Really, really fucking dumb, but it is the reality of the situation.....
I can understand both sides of the issue, and not sending out the firefighters (though I think it's bad policy). However, when the fire department actually showed up because of the neighbors house (and thus were already there with their trucks and men), why didn't they just put out the other guy's fire for a huge fee? If they're that strapped for cash I don't think charging $10,000 or whatever to hose the guy's house with water would be bad for the department finances.
Also, those saying that charging a huge sum rather than a yearly fee would cause people to stop paying the fee are ridiculous, especially if you make the fee disproportionately high. It's like any kind of insurance: yeah, I'm probably going to pay more over my lifetime in insurance than my medical costs (obviously, otherwise the insurance company wouldn't make any money). That doesn't mean I'm going to live without it and just hope for the best. One big bill can spell bankruptcy. I know this - I broke my leg two years ago in a really bad manner and it cost $40,000. For years and years I paid insurance without anything happening, but thank god I had insurance when that happened. I think most people think like that.
Sure, some people don't think that that, but they're in the minority. I lived in Switzerland for years and had a friend who went out by himself to a remote, dangerous area to snowboard. He ended up getting in trouble and they had to send out a helicopter to get him. Normally the service is included in ski-parks as part of the fee, but since he wasn't in one they just charged him a ton of money. I'd have been pissed if they let him die.
On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote: What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end.
It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
This is why incorporated areas have mandatory taxes that go to pay for fire department services. The biggest irony is that firefighters get alot of money from private donations. This is very surprising behavior for most Americans because we have this expectation that firefighters have a moral obligation to be altruistic, which is a contributing factor to why people are willing to denote money to help support them.
The community has a right to be very angry because of what a fire does. It pollutes the air that the community breathes. This really isn't acceptable in the US. Never thought this was possible but apparently it is.
On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote: What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end.
It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
On October 06 2010 00:10 Cloud wrote: Yeah... don't pay $75 and we'll just go and watch your $100000+ possessions turn to ash. Sounds very logical to me. Bureaucratic bullshit.
Sounds logical to me. I don't understand in all honesty. Would it be better if we just forced him to pay $75 annually for this protection instead of giving him the option? I was always under the impression that giving people choices was better instead of forcing them to do what we deem is best for society, but I could be wrong.
He was outside the city limit, which (I believe) is why the tax argument doesn't hold up. If he wasn't paying tax to the city to support the fire department he can choose to be covered anyways via this fee, right?
Well this story is a bundle of sadface. I can understand the firefighters trying to make a statement that if you're not paying you don't get their service. But they didn't have to let his house burn down. That's just cold hearted, much more merciless than you would hope people to be nowadays. It's unfortunate for that man, I guess this should be a warning to everyone else to pay their fees on time. + Show Spoiler +
this is complete horse shit, im glad some 1 went down their and beat the crap outta 1 of them if they would have the nerve to come to your private property and just watch your home and everything in just vanish i would be smashing some ones face in.How can people be so heartless?its not like they couldnt have just put it out like WTF i doubt they all would have lost their jobs.Its just sickening.
[/QUOTE] ^ hahaha that made me lold irl for some reason.
seriously wtf if they are there they could atleast save the house and maybe the guy would give them the fee but OH NO you didn't pay the Fee your house shall incinerate. no offence - America pay thy tax or taste the wrath of the ash.
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
Dude should have paid his fee. I don't feel that bad that he lost his house; but it does suck that his pets died. People out in the country have enjoyed low property taxes forever. Now that property tax revenue is declining in the cities/burbs they can no longer subsidize the small town departments.
It's like the kids who buy iPods instead of health insurance and end up getting cancer...it really really sucks, but it's their fault in the end for not thinking ahead.
I would definitely be in favor of being able to pay an exorbitant fee to get a fire department to put out a fire even if you haven't paid your dues. I hope this sad development leads to discussion on a decision along those lines.
We get what we pay for, and that's how it works. It sounds like a travesty, but the firefighting job in the United States is a tough and dangerous job that is disappearing due to budget cuts. We want lower taxes, but the first things to go are social services. (Whether or not we pay them regardless, those local politicians do what they want with our tax money, that is, pocket it and fire our vital services.)
Any blaze is a risk for the firemen, so if they are not payed (in a LEGAL way), then it will not work. And plus asking for them to save your house by offering a huge fee is like a bribe, and should be deemed as such. Smart people would sue afterwords claiming they were forced to bribe the firemen.
Good to see America is still a nation where money means more than other human beings.
You want to know why the country is going downhill? This bullshit right here. When firefighters run protection rackets and let thousands of dollars worth of stuff burn to ashes over a fucking $75 fee. Unbelievable.
Sometimes I wish the country would just collapse and die.
On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote: I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
Your scenario is not the same as the scenario in the OP, and thus is irrelevant to the argument.
On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote: What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end.
It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a fire department. One truck is usually around $500,000 and this is for a pumper or tanker, Ladder engines are more expensive. That is just the cost of the truck, not all the equipment that goes with it, hoses, axes, first aid stuff, the gear the firefighters wear. Now, add in the cost of maintaining these trucks, paying the fire fighters, buildings to house the equipment, all the high pressure water mains and fire hydrants, ... starting to get the picture? They came up with this method of paying for fire coverage to cover what has always been a service that costs an exorbitant amount of money. There are costs associated with everything, and when you don't help to provide the resources to combat these things, why should you reap the benefits of what everyone else has put into it. No, $75 is not a lot of money, and doesn't really cover much of the cost of the fire department, but $75 from the hundreds that are paying it helps quite a bit, especially when almost no one actually to use the service.
And if you were one of those firefighters, would you really want to risk your life for someone who doesn't care about you at all, as evident by his lack of payment. By paying into the fire department you are not only protecting you property, you are helping protect the fire department by giving them better tools and training. By not paying, and still expecting to get service you are saying "I dont give a rats ass that you risk your life every time you go out to do your job, my stuff is more important then your life, now go risk your life and save my stuff.
On October 06 2010 01:40 Radios wrote: Good to see America is still a nation where money means more than other human beings.
You want to know why the country is going downhill? This bullshit right here. When firefighters run protection rackets and let thousands of dollars worth of stuff burn to ashes over a fucking $75 fee. Unbelievable.
Sometimes I wish the country would just collapse and die.
Of course there needs to be changes Radios. However, our entire social services departments are taped with red tape. Everywhere. That is how it works. If you want it to collapse and die, by all means, go ahead. I would rather I work towards a change then watch it die. You do what you will.
But I can't imagine anyone who would argue that firefighting should not be paid for out of property taxes that fund public firefighting, regardless of whether X property lot is within Y city, etc. Surely extensions and such should be made to ensure all homes all covered by public firefighting and not require out-of-pocket expenses to guarantee one's home. Even though this man's house was outside of the city limits, it's just unbelievable that municipal taxes or something of the sort wouldn't cover firefighting without having to worry.
On October 06 2010 01:25 mierin wrote: It's like the kids who buy iPods instead of health insurance and end up getting cancer...it really really sucks, but it's their fault in the end for not thinking ahead.
This keeps being brought up, but the analogy fails hard. "The Kids" can at least opt to pay the total cost of the treatment themselves should they have the money or should theybe able take up a loan (that's at least something...<sigh>). This possibility was not even given to the guy in this case. What the city offered there was obviously not an insurance, so comparing it to an insurance = fail.
On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote: I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help?
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
Only problem is the firemen are under-paid and getting laid off too. I can see that it is inhumane, but as in my previous statement, they cannot accept direct offers, which is bribery. Free lunches can be taken advantage of.
Where I work as part time, people have enough money to pay for their own lunches. Only those poor enough should have to use the free lunch program. Instead, half of the people who can afford their own lunches take advantage of the free lunch program only meant for poor people. Free lunches are a joke.
Again, as stupid as this sounds, the man should have paid for the services. Neglect was his own downfall.
Fire Dept probably could have made money from it by charging the man like 75,000 for the service. Sure, they might have to sell the house, a car, and some property, but that family was going to lose all that anyways if the fire fighters didn't do anything. What happened here is just a waste of resources.
i'll wager that the firfighters were not allowed to do anything because he hadn't paid the fee, they may well have been in trouble if they had..... don't be too quick to blame them, i am sure they would have gone in and got any people out, but if there is no one in danger and they have been told they aren't allowed to put out the fire due to lack of payment, then what can you expect them to do?
Its wrong, do not misunderstand me. I think its disgusting, but I wouldn't think its the firefighters faults more likely their management.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
On October 06 2010 01:47 Alou wrote: They offered to pay if they stopped the fire and they still said no. That's bullshit. Not a fan of this policy or the firefighters.
That's probably the main reason I'm angry about this whole ordeal. They had the opportunity to collect what was owed to them, but didn't. They skipped out on the payment so that they could watch the house burn down, like a bunch of sociopathic man-children.
lol, I wrecked my car and some mysterious person called 911 on me even though I was fine
I told the paramedics to go away because I knew they'd charge me insane amounts for nothing, so they left without rendering any aid and 2 days later sent me a bill for $125 just for having to drive 4 blocks with 2 people in the ambulance
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
The core solution is they should have forced these out of city people to pay, instead of giving them a choice, because clearly in this scenario he couldn't handle the choice.
Sometimes you have to protect idiots from themselves.
What's next? Somebody stabs me sending me to the hospital. They don't treat me because I have no health insurance.
I know those firefighters have to follow orders but common senses should tell them that not saving the house after they arrived at the location would cause a bigger problem.
On October 06 2010 02:03 LunarDestiny wrote: What's next? Somebody stabs me sending me to the hospital. They don't treat me because I have no health insurance.
I know those firefighters have to follow orders but common senses should tell them that not saving the house after they arrived at the location would cause a bigger problem.
This already exists. A lot of people die in the United States because they can't afford medical costs. Not for emergency room visits, of course, but if you need say a lung transplant or some sort of expensive surgery afterwards its raise half a million+ or die.
Coming from someone who has family that lives in the boonies, some counties don't have enough population or money to afford fire fighting, so they either organize a volunteer fire department (sheesh these are so bad), or they charge a fee. It's a fact of life, it happens sometimes. In some states they have tried to ban the volunteer fire fighting since there have been unprofessional practices before that have led to problems.
On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote: I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help?
If I was already standing next to said country with a "fix all that country's fucking problems button" (ie: a fire hose) then yea I'd press it and settle up with them after the fact. They'd find some way to work off the debt.
But obviously the point you were making is much more complicated than this - and that's the problem. This situation wasn't complicated. These "firefighters" could have solved the problem instantly and let the city deal with how to make sure the man paid his debt. Instead they watched his house burn to prove some mafia-style point of "better pay your protection money fuckers". That's insane.
On October 06 2010 02:04 Piy wrote: Isn't capitalism wonderful.
Other options?
But on topic, I think the firefighters did the right thing. As people pointed out, on an economic standpoint they had no other choice. If people figured out that you could not pay the monthly fee and then just be charged a large sum of money IF your house caught on fire everyone would go for that because the chances of a house fire are pretty small. This would cripple the fire department which would then not be able to save anyones houses.
Just having the $75 be mandatory would solve this whole problem though...
On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote: I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different.
What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help?
If I was already standing next to said country with a "fix all that country's fucking problems button" (ie: a fire hose) then yea I'd press it and settle up with them after the fact. They'd find some way to work off the debt.
But obviously the point you were making is much more complicated than this - and that's the problem. This situation wasn't complicated. These "firefighters" could have solved the problem instantly and let the city deal with how to make sure the man paid his debt. Instead they watched his house burn to prove some mafia-style point of "better pay your protection money fuckers". That's insane.
What entitles you to this help? There is plenty of people out in the world that need this help, and it sounds like you are saying that everyone is required to help them. Why are you not helping them. There are thousands in the world who you could make a significant difference too, but I'm betting you don't do anything and just look down your nose at these firefighters because they didn't risk their lives unnecessarily. I'm not trying to attack you, just hold you up to the standards that you are holding these firefighters to, and just like them you are failing to measure up.
And the fire department isn't an instant fix like you seem to think it is. Its more of a have the fire fighters risk their lives and still have the house completely destroyed, and thats if everything goes well.
On October 05 2010 22:22 Electric.Jesus wrote: Some services are just not well-suited for privatization, this being one of them.
Indeed, I already hate the fact that electricity has been privatised in Germany (now we have a couple of four corperations with incredible profits while raising prices for absolutely no reason) and our gouvernment still attempts to sell Deutsche Bahn (german railroad) at the stock market. There's simply no reason to do so, instead many will suffer from worse conditions and higher prices while the profits will be invested in higher chairman loans (not higher loans for usual employees of course, those will most likely drop further) and other countries... Privatisation of certain things only worsens conditions for the people, but as most gouverments only gouvern to satisfy the economic system they'll never acknowledge that.
If the dude was offering to pay on the spot with his house burning in the background, the goddamn FireFighters should've gotten off their asses and helped him. Yes he should've payed the fee in advance, but they should've still had a heart. I can't possibly imagine someone standing by getting begged to help and just just watching the house burn down instead.
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote: The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars! Show some sympathy.
Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
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.
Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on.
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.
Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on.
There are fees because the area where the man lived under was outside the jurisdiction of the city. The city cannot tax the man unless they want to get into a nice dispute over their domain of power. They cannot impose a mandatory fee for the same reason. So they can only provide an optional fee to provide fire services.
My first post in the forums hi to all. After reading first 5 pages of comments I had say something.
I would love if all services would be like this, you pay -> you get service or you don't pay -> you don't get service.
Where I live the system is = You get paycheck -> goverment takes large % of it -> goverment takes care of people and same time stops every free market solution to work -> some people are stupid or not taking care of their lives -> goverment pays stupid people so they don't die to whatever they are caused to themselves -> stupid people become more stupid -> goverment needs % of my money to take care of other people -> I don't have any point to go to work cause I can sit on my fat ass front of compputer and go ask money from goverment every 2 weeks and I still get paid about the same -> goverment can't deliver what they are paid anymore cause it requires too much money -> goverment fund healthcare and fire fighting simply don't have enough money, it simply can not operate anymore -> no more firefighting -> everyones house burn down because most of people thought it would be NICE that goverment takes care of everyone.
basically I'm glad the firefighters just stood there and not do anything. Yes, if that man was me I would be very mad atm but maybe next time I would realize that I have to pay for service if I want it.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
On October 06 2010 02:04 Piy wrote: Isn't capitalism wonderful.
Other options?
But on topic, I think the firefighters did the right thing. As people pointed out, on an economic standpoint they had no other choice. If people figured out that you could not pay the monthly fee and then just be charged a large sum of money IF your house caught on fire everyone would go for that because the chances of a house fire are pretty small. This would cripple the fire department which would then not be able to save anyones houses.
Just having the $75 be mandatory would solve this whole problem though...
The funny thing is, it wasnt even capitalism(the free market sort anyway). A free market profit organisation would no doubt have helped - for a fee. It is the government funded bureaucratic system that led to this disaster, where monetary incentives could not help the family out due to lack of owner of fire depot capital existing.
On October 05 2010 22:22 Electric.Jesus wrote: Some services are just not well-suited for privatization, this being one of them.
Indeed, I already hate the fact that electricity has been privatised in Germany (now we have a couple of four corperations with incredible profits while raising prices for absolutely no reason) and our gouvernment still attempts to sell Deutsche Bahn (german railroad) at the stock market. There's simply no reason to do so, instead many will suffer from worse conditions and higher prices while the profits will be invested in higher chairman loans (not higher loans for usual employees of course, those will most likely drop further) and other countries... Privatisation of certain things only worsens conditions for the people, but as most gouverments only gouvern to satisfy the economic system they'll never acknowledge that.
The only tool in the hands of humans that is capable of driving capital according our desires is Demonstrated Preference. Without demonstrating our preferences, the preferences do not even exist. And the only tool for demonstrating preference in regards to distribution of possessions is Exchange. Therefore, only through Exchange can an economic system exist. And the only Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma-optimal use of Nonexchange in distribution of goods is to counter Nonexchange(aka violence only allowed against aggressors). Therefore non-exchange systems are uneconomical(including state enforced regulations) and the only economically sound system is Libertarianism, in its economic form the pure Free Market.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
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.
Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on.
There are fees because the area where the man lived under was outside the jurisdiction of the city. The city cannot tax the man unless they want to get into a nice dispute over their domain of power. They cannot impose a mandatory fee for the same reason. So they can only provide an optional fee to provide fire services.
You cannot expect cities to just take over areas not under their area of taxation. Otherwise, you're going to have what amounts to a civil war.
*edit* Thanks, NukeTheBunny, for catching my typo.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
That's a different discussion. There are two discussions going on here.
1) Should the firefighters have put out the fire despite the guy having decided not to pay previously?
2) Should the government use a system which forces him to pay?
Threads like this always suk because even after 19 pages there are still "outraged" posters who haven't bothered to read the news article and watch the news video. Getting the facts + understanding law makes it obvious te firefighters did nothing wrong.
If you dont like the shrinking of government services, stop voting republican because schools are next. All those rich Christians love sending their kids to private christian schools and want to be able to opt out of the part of taxes that pays for public schools. Republicans are all for it, but that only degrades the quality of public schools by reducing their funding. Also since the private schools Can spend more money due to charging tuition per student much higher than the government budgets to schools per child, they can pay teachers more and steal the best ones.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
That's a different discussion. There are two discussions going on here.
1) Should the firefighters have put out the fire despite the guy having decided not to pay previously?
2) Should the government use a system which forces him to pay?
1.
If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
even if they did it for free they are still opening themselves up to the trespassing, and water damage. Since you cant determine if the damage was caused by water or the fire you would end up with a situation where they would be liable for most of the value of the home.
2.
You cannot expect cities to just take over areas [not] under their area of taxation. Otherwise, you're going to have what amounts to a civil war.
On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote: The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars! Show some sympathy.
Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have.
What the hell are you talking about? This only makes sense if... actually I can't get this to make sense.
On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote: The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars! Show some sympathy.
Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have.
What the hell are you talking about? This only makes sense if... actually I can't get this to make sense.
1) He chose not to buy protection. 2) He needed protection. 3) Because he did not buy protection, no protection was offered 4) House burned down.
In the car analogy...
1) He chose not to use protection. 2) He needed protection. 3) Because he did not use protection, there was no protection. 4) Went through windshield.
People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
Because unless you lived out in the rural areas, they don't take kindly to things they feel that they don't need, namely government intervention. I live in Kentucky and I get a lot of that kind of sentiment around here. You try taxing rural regions on stuff like this, they'll vote it down 9 times out of 10. Hell, public transportation had to fight to get a slight increase in property taxes in metro areas in order to keep it financially afloat.
The man in the article is trying to have it both ways. Like trying to buy insurance after an injury at a before-injury premium, it doesn't work like that. Manifesto is right in that the government could charge an exorbitant amount, but that would only work out if the government had such a clause in place already. Namely because the man could have brought up a legal shit storm against the govt. In any case, the man made a decision before all of this happened and he has to live with the consequences.
Firefighters deserve no blame because doing the right thing here doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run, i.e.- if everyone in rural areas just stopped paying the fees and pulling this crap every time there was a fire. So the man deserves no sympathy and the firefighters deserve no blame, it's a shitty situation, but to blame any singular entity for the outcome is naive.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote: On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
He made the choice to not pay, the fact the firefighters went out there at all shows that they actually care about the well-being of the parties involved. What would have been inhumane is if the firefighters or 911 just straight up told him, deal with it, it's your problem.
Shit happens, you choose what shit you get to protect against, he clearly made the decision not to protect against fire. Don't put fire protection as a human right, it's a privilege and paid for by fees and taxes, he didn't pay anything, he doesn't get it.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Highlighting the key points. It's still a government issue nonetheless.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Highlighting the key points. It's still a government issue nonetheless.
As I explained previously, there are two discussions going on in parallel here. Saying that one is unresolved doesn't mean the explanation that answers the other is wrong.
On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
Ouch, really? When was this?
And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
I'm glad someone went to the fire department and assaulted an officer. Every one of the people in that local fire department deserve a swift kick to the face.
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
Ouch, really? When was this?
And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses.
And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there.
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
Ouch, really? When was this?
And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses.
And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there.
I'm assuming the firefighters are also predominately white?
On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
Ouch, really? When was this?
And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses.
And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there.
I'm assuming the firefighters are also predominately white?
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive.
As for being a good human being: that doesn't work. If they accept this and take it at a loss, it establishes a precedent that will lead to decreased revenue and thus decreased service / no service at all if the firefighting business loses its profit margin. That would lead to more long-term houses burned down than this single house.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
Economic viability? Of running a fire service? You kidding me? Maybe you should factor in the ethic viability for once. On a sidenote, there are arguments in economics that would surely support putting out the fire, same as for paying unemployed ppl a monthly sum. It keeps ppl potent on the market. Letting ten thousands of $ burn to the ground and essentially ruining a family doesnt sound economically viable to me if you look at it from a broader perspective. And thats not even talking about the ethic viability of such practice.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
Well, I think some of us do realize this, but nonetheless find it appalling that firefighters stand next to a FRIGGING BURNING HOUSE and don't do anything ... what about this? Sure you can open up an ethical discussion to when exactly what kind of help is ethically warranted or you can open up an economic discussion and say that their pay-for-service business model would not work if they would have helped there ... but honestly ... it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with firefighters that opt to not fight a fire, because a service fee was not paid upfront.
On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
Nobody argues for a free lunch here ... everybody agrees that the guy should have payed after they had safed his house - and a huge amount at that, as far as I am concerned. This is how a meaningful insurance system should be set up for fire protection anyways. But this is also a different matter. The firefighters where there ... they had the means to stop the fire, but didn't. If I would have stood there with a bucket of water big enough to quench the fire and the man would have begged me for help, and I replied that it is my water, my property, and that I have no obligation to use it to extinguish the fire and even refused any compensation he offered me ... would you have called me a douche?
On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote: So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one.
Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise.
Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss.
Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence.
If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive.
I don't see how the fire department sending a rational bill after saving the house would be a problem, people get similar bills from police departments responding to calls, or much more commonly ambulance rides, when some one is dying they don't ask you to open up your wallet before putting you in the van, they put you in the van and save your life. Bill comes later.
The fire department would be justified in putting out a fire on an unprotected home with or without the consent of the home owner and then charging them afterward because as this story shows, letting the house burn out of control is a threat to nearby houses.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
Economic viability? Of running a fire service? You kidding me? Maybe you should factor in the ethic viability for once. On a sidenote, there are arguments in economics that would surely support putting out the fire, same as for paying unemployed ppl a monthly sum. It keeps ppl potent on the market. Letting ten thousands of $ burn to the ground and essentially ruining a family doesnt sound economically viable to me if you look at it from a broader perspective. And thats not even talking about the ethic viability of such practice.
The system in the article is that of a business. Firefighters have to be paid, and their equipment costs money. I also don't agree with your "it's profitable to do what you normally would do for payment but for free" bit at the end.
Ethics don't factor into this kind of system; an ethical system is a bankrupt system that can't put out any fires.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive.
I don't see how the fire department sending a rational bill after saving the house would be a problem, people get similar bills from police departments responding to calls, or much more commonly ambulance rides, when some one is dying they don't ask you to open up your wallet before putting you in the van, they put you in the van and save your life. Bill comes later.
The fire department would be justified in putting out a fire on an unprotected home with or without the consent of the home owner and then charging them afterward because as this story shows, letting the house burn out of control is a threat to nearby houses.
All this over $75, it's disgusting.
The law is not common sense. The fire department would be opening them up to lots of legal action if they accepted the guys payment.
So the city has decided to expand the subscription service to other towns, also it would cost an extra 13 cents of property tax in order to fund the Fire Department
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
Well, I think some of us do realize this, but nonetheless find it appalling that firefighters stand next to a FRIGGING BURNING HOUSE and don't do anything ... what about this? Sure you can open up an ethical discussion to when exactly what kind of help is ethically warranted or you can open up an economic discussion and say that their pay-for-service business model would not work if they would have helped there ... but honestly ... it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with firefighters that opt to not fight a fire, because a service fee was not paid upfront.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
Nobody argues for a free lunch here ... everybody agrees that the guy should have payed after they had safed his house - and a huge amount at that, as far as I am concerned. This is how a meaningful insurance system should be set up for fire protection anyways. But this is also a different matter. The firefighters where there ... they had the means to stop the fire, but didn't. If I would have stood there with a bucket of water big enough to quench the fire and the man would have begged me for help, and I replied that it is my water, my property, and that I have no obligation to use it to extinguish the fire and even refused any compensation he offered me ... would you have called me a douche?
That's an entirely different discussion. I'm answer the question of "Should the firefighters have put out the fire?", not "Is a privately run firefighting business better than a government-run system?"
Lets assume that 1/1000 people will have their house burn down.
The cost is 75 dollars per year (present value).
He pays taxes for 50 years of his life.
Present value of that single call would be 1000 * 75 * 50 ~ 3.75 million dollars. That would be his share of the fire protection service.
Ok. Maybe 1/1000 is too rare. How about 1/100? That still puts it at around 375 000 bucks for his share in this situation.....
Yea. Are you guys sure that his house was worth 375 000 bucks? If it was, it's his own fucking fault for not having proper insurance and protection of it. If not, the better choice in that situation is to let the fucking thing burn down.....
Idiots need protection from themselves..... This should have been a mandatory 75 bucks a year thing, but yea, because it isn't, this type of shit will happen.....
On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote: So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one.
Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise.
Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss.
Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence.
If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
You don't get it: this is what people want. This is the United States, where having to pay for government fire protection is socialism and an affront to freedom. The guy probably voted in this exact system.
On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote: So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one.
Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise.
Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss.
Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence.
If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
People are arrested for vandalism because they are breaking the law. There was also nobody trapped within the home, so the "what ifs" don't matter. And as I stated, there are long term implications to setting a precedent here. Everything is connected.
I find it amusing that some of the comfy couch moral white knights advocate violence against the firefighters for doing their job an abiding by the laws and policies of their elected officials.
As for comparing police to firefighters, the same issues apply. If a police officer on duty is outside his jurisdiction and performs and arrest because he felt it was the right thingto do, the criminal will go free due to unlawful arrest and the officer would be disciplined or fired for fucking it up. Govenment agents only have power to act within their jurisdiction. If that house was outside the city and he wasn't part of the service opt-in program he was out of their jurisdiction and fighting that fire would've opened them up to a legal shitstorm and millions in liability.
I believe a lot of basi services like firefighting should be provided by all and paid for wih taxes. However, under the system where this event occurred the firefighters were following the laws and policies of their elected officials. If you want someone to blame, blame all the citizens who vote in Republicans that get elected by promising to cut social services along with taxes because they hate government intervention in anything.
The system in place with firefighting running on fees is downright insane. It's very fucked up to want a society where houses are burned down with firefighters watching it happen. But once you have that nutso system in place what else can you do but adhere to it? The only thing worse than having firefighting running on fees is having it not run at all something which will happen if fees are not paid. It's gross but the only solution to me is to change the system and not this individual happening.
this happened near where i live. the people were outside the city limits and they knew ahead of time what it meant to not pay the fee. When I bought my house "out in the sticks" i had to pay the same fee that the opted out of.
The moral of the story is that people should actually show up to elections and vote for the candidates that support social public services (Democrats) instead of the guys who want to cut these services (Republican). Too bad rural areas that are affected by this continue to only vote Republican because anti-government sentiment runs strong and deep in rural areas.
Firefighters can only act within the bounds set by their politician bosses.
Ethics don't factor into this kind of system; an ethical system is a bankrupt system that can't put out any fires.
First of all I don't have full understanding what ethics mean, but I think the system is ethical and the firefighters not putting out the fire (as long as there was no1 in the building) was morally right because it kept the system working in future.
All this over $75, it's disgusting.
It was all over to protect the houseowners who paid the $75. I think it's not disgusting it was simply best way to keep the fire department running and that way protect the people who PAY to run the fire department, which protects their homes.
In short I think this system works. 1) There are people who run fire department I bet they don't get huge paychecks for risking their lives. *cheers for them 2)People pay small fee in advance so they and every1 else who pay it can get the service when they need it.
This kinda system DOES not work if there is freeloaders, that's why goverments have to take loans and raise taxes to run their system because there's too many freeloaders.
Yeah the firefighters just stood there, so? When I see someone in need of help and I can help him I usually do so, but not if it means that lot of other people who need the same help and have done something to get the help don't get it.
On October 06 2010 04:27 stroggos wrote: wow the nobility of firefighting has just gone down a notch, well at least in this case. This sickens me that a society could function this way.
The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans).
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
It has nothing to do with the firefighters and everything to do with politicians. We need to beef up civics courses in high school because this thread suggests that most people have no idea how laws and governments work.
On October 06 2010 04:25 Zzoram wrote: The moral of the story is that people should actually show up to elections and vote for the candidates that support social public services (Democrats) instead of the guys who want to cut these services (Republican). Too bad rural areas that are affected by this continue to only vote Republican because anti-government sentiment runs strong and deep in rural areas.
Firefighters can only act within the bounds set by their politician bosses.
It costs money to provide those services. I don't want to pay for a service that I don't need.
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system.
On October 06 2010 04:27 stroggos wrote: wow the nobility of firefighting has just gone down a notch, well at least in this case. This sickens me that a society could function this way.
The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans).
he didn't want to pay $75 to the city to cover his house from burning down. I'm pretty sure he's a republican.
On October 06 2010 04:27 stroggos wrote: wow the nobility of firefighting has just gone down a notch, well at least in this case. This sickens me that a society could function this way.
The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans).
clearly he's a democrat because he was too stupid to pay the $75 bucks and was waiting for some welfare to pay for it for him.
all jokes aside, who cares about the political implications. Pay the fee if u want the service. Not that tough.
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system.
It would probably have to be more. People aren't going to pay $75 for an extremely small chance to save $300. You would have to make the fee quite high to get people to still pay the annual fee.
I would say to get rid of the "fee" system altogether. It just doesn't work.
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system.
That would be a system change, which is a different discussion. They couldn't strike a deal while there as it would be legally murky and would open up the firefighters to lawsuit.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
A good Dose of mises will do here.
What produces a man's profit in the course of affairs within an unhampered market society is not his fellow citizen's plight and distress but the fact that he alleviates or entirely removes what causes his fellow citizen's feeling of uneasiness. What hurts the sick is the plague, not the physician who treats the disease. The doctor's gain is not an outcome of the epidemics but of the aid he gives to those affected. The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight of future conditions. Those who succeeded better than others in anticipating future events and in adjusting their activities to the future state of the market reap profits because they are in a position to satisfy the most urgent needs of the public. The profits of those who have produced goods and services for which the buyers scramble are not the source of the losses of those who have brought to the market commodities in the purchase of which the public is not prepared to pay the full amount of production costs expended. These losses are caused by the lack of insight displayed in anticipating the future demand of the consumers.
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote: its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
Economic viability? Of running a fire service? You kidding me? Maybe you should factor in the ethic viability for once. On a sidenote, there are arguments in economics that would surely support putting out the fire, same as for paying unemployed ppl a monthly sum. It keeps ppl potent on the market. Letting ten thousands of $ burn to the ground and essentially ruining a family doesnt sound economically viable to me if you look at it from a broader perspective. And thats not even talking about the ethic viability of such practice.
Wow... YOU come talk about ethics? Free market Libertarianism has the ethical high ground, ALWAYS.
“The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
Most political debates really are that simple. People don’t get into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn’t impose one restaurant on everyone – and shoot those trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn’t care less about this woman’s views on education – just as she couldn’t care less about my views – but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate, and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren’t going to get anywhere.
why are people trying to make this capitalism vs socialism? the fire dept is a publicly funded and owned operation. you don't see the fucking european union providing universal healthcare to US citizens. why? BECAUSE WE DONT PAY YOUR TAXES.
I don't think anyone thinks optional firefighting service is a good idea but that is the system. Remember the people affected voted for the guys who cut firefighting out of the rural county tax, forcing the residents to buy coverage from nearby cities if they want to opt in. They chose this system when they chose the small government politicians.
On October 06 2010 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the city has decided to expand the subscription service to other towns, also it would cost an extra 13 cents of property tax in order to fund the Fire Department
I actually read this and it is a propsial to create a county wide fire department that would have made this a non issue. It is dated from 2008, and so clearly was not accepted because if it was accepted he would have had the fire put out. It would have cost an additional $0.13 per person in the county to enact this plan, or an additional $116 per house hold outside the municipal areas(two separate funding plans, and there were several more). Clearly neither of these plans passed. So what this amounts to is that the county decided that it did not to increase the fire protection for these costs.
It had some interesting information in there, such as Rural calls account for 75% of the calls that the fire departments in the county are responding too. They charge a fee for the response, rural or otherwise, but have no legal way of collecting this fee from the rural property owners, and end up collecting it less then 50% of the time.
In response some of the county fire departments refuse to respond to calls from rural areas that do not have the subscription, the South Fulton F.D. is one of the two that refuse. A third may or may not respond with out the subscription.
The information is really lacking, but as far as I can tell, this fire department is NOT private! So stop blaming the free market for what a municipal Obion County FD did or didn't do. Thanks! http://troy.troytn.com/ocfire_myths.htm
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote: People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system.
To quote myself about the actual cost of the service.....
On October 06 2010 04:07 Impervious wrote: Ok. To throw some numbers out there.
Lets assume that 1/1000 people will have their house burn down.
The cost is 75 dollars per year (present value).
He pays taxes for 50 years of his life.
Present value of that single call would be 1000 * 75 * 50 ~ 3.75 million dollars. That would be his share of the fire protection service.
Ok. Maybe 1/1000 is too rare. How about 1/100? That still puts it at around 375 000 bucks for his share in this situation.....
Yea. Are you guys sure that his house was worth 375 000 bucks? If it was, it's his own fucking fault for not having proper insurance and protection of it. If not, the better choice in that situation is to let the fucking thing burn down.....
Idiots need protection from themselves..... This should have been a mandatory 75 bucks a year thing, but yea, because it isn't, this type of shit will happen.....
Multiply your "300" by a factor of a thousand, and you're getting close.....
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion)
Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house.
You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
He has no case if he tries to file a suit against the fire department. They broke no laws or contracts. If they did put out his house fire they would have broken the law and been liable for damages. How many times does this have to be restated?
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
Well good for the ones who pay, if you don't well take the shit it comes at you... This hapends on the medical care too atleast on my country... Of course you get the ER attention but if you need something big your going to get a big ass bill on your hands or in your family if you die
What a retarded system of paying for fire protection. It should be included in local taxes. No one can predict that a fire will happen to their house, so there will be people that will think they don't have to pay it if it's an external fee system like that. However, there's no excusable reason why firefighters should just watch a house burn down. They should be getting payed, and they should be saving houses, and the only way that would happen for sure is if they were paid in a more inescapable method of taxation, like a local sales tax.
On October 05 2010 14:21 Nightmarjoo wrote: I guess if he's supposed to pay the fee and didn't, then you get what you pay for, but still it sure is a dick move for the firefighters to show up and just watch it burn ._.
I think as long as you pay taxes you're entitled to firefighting service. Obviously once you stop the house from burning you can bust out the prosecutors and work out a charge of a fine or something afterward but letting the house burn is just ridiculous.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
On October 05 2010 14:48 hixhix wrote: Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
Let us assume......nothing I support your economics arguement with statistics.
According to the U.S. census burea there are approximately 2.59 people per household in this country. Thus it is fair to assume, that of the 29,000 total people effected that they are spread amongst approximately 11,197 homes. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
There are 115,830,115 million homes in america (using 300 million as a rough estimate of our population divided by the 2.59 people per home) $8,687,258,687.25 if each of those households pays for "fire insurance"
Alternatively, if none of the households pay for the insurance then only the 11,197 have to pay 7,500 and the fire dept only rakes in $897,740. A sharp decrease. This statistic is not surprising however (or at least it shouldn't be) to anyone who owns car insurance. If you are paying the monthly fee for car insurance or in this case, fire insurance, you are paying drastically more than your person costs the company to insure on aveage. (why do you think you see 2 geico, a state farm, an allstate, and a progressive commercial during the superbowl?)
To actually match the amount of money the fire department is asking(raping) from it's constituants, each burning home would have to cough up $775,855.91 Just for the department to break even.
Localizing this situation to my home stat of VA.
The annual budget for our fire department is $31,298,258 for a population of 7,882,590 people or about 4$ per person.
1. The fire department in Obion County, Tennessee. Is completely raping their customers. 2. Someone should undercut them with a private firefighting service that only charges 25$ a month with more stations and faster service and still make a killing. You would need a couple billion dollars of upstart money though.
On October 06 2010 05:11 AlienAlias wrote: What a retarded system of paying for fire protection. It should be included in local taxes. No one can predict that a fire will happen to their house, so there will be people that will think they don't have to pay it if it's an external fee system like that. However, there's no excusable reason why firefighters should just watch a house burn down. They should be getting payed, and they should be saving houses, and the only way that would happen for sure is if they were paid in a more inescapable method of taxation, like a local sales tax.
On October 05 2010 14:21 Nightmarjoo wrote: I guess if he's supposed to pay the fee and didn't, then you get what you pay for, but still it sure is a dick move for the firefighters to show up and just watch it burn ._.
I think as long as you pay taxes you're entitled to firefighting service. Obviously once you stop the house from burning you can bust out the prosecutors and work out a charge of a fine or something afterward but letting the house burn is just ridiculous.
People are still not reading this thread. They cannot include it into the local taxes because they have no jurisdiction in that area! The SERVICE they are providing HAS to be optional because the city cannot mandate regions outside their control to pay them.
Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion)
Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house.
You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self.
Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post.
and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it
Costs for running fire service don't scale like that. A city of 2500 people like in this article or a city with 10,000 people would both likely have one fire station so the bigger city gets a cheaper per resident cost.
On October 06 2010 05:25 Neo7 wrote: Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
They were there not to dilly dally or to make fun of the guy, but to prevent the fire from spreading.
On October 06 2010 05:25 Neo7 wrote: Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
Read the article. They were watching the house burn specifically to make sure it didn't spread. They hosed the grass between the burning house an a neighbour to stop it from spreading.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
Well, I agree we don't really have a right to give them shit while were sitting from the comfort of computer. But it sounded like you weren't just defending the firefighters not doing something, you were actively advocating that not doing something was a superior course of action.
They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
No, they shouldn't have to. Rosa Parks was by no means obligated to do what she did. But still, standing up is certainly a nice thing to do.
Though yeah, I doubt any of us would do differently.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
On October 06 2010 05:06 Holgerius wrote: This is just horrible. I'm so glad I don't live in USA.
This is an exceptional case - most (I'm assuming almost all?) towns in the US have their fire departments funded through state/town taxes. This particular town just wants to do things their own way.
Y'know, I bet that the neighbor who paid the $75 fee would have preferred if they had just put the damn fire out in the first place. I doubt the other townspeople who paid the $75 feel totally smug about themselves. If his neighbors had the means to help, I'm sure they would have. I bet they're pissed at the FD they actually pay their fees to.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
kinda lame argument there and highly arguable (ex:one could say that the laws are made by the rich for the rich) but ill humor you. are you saying that after voting, the loosing side is forced to just suck it up and take it up the rear from the wining side?. really?, i thought were all humans here and regardless of who wins the law should protect us all.
i did not say we are above the law but i am saying we should be better then it.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
kinda lame argument there and highly arguable (ex:one could say that the laws are made by the rich for the rich) but ill humor you. are you saying that after voting, the loosing side is forced to just suck it up and take it up the rear from the wining side?. really?, i thought were all humans here and regardless of who wins the law should protect us all.
i did not say we are above the law but i am saying we should be better then it.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. That why most functioning 'Democracies' are really Republics. There is not, and likely will never be, universal agreement on how much 'protection' every person has the right to.
Would I like to expect my house to be safe if something happens to it, absolutely. Would I expect if I didn't pay the taxes/fees associated with it, nope.
These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
On October 06 2010 05:44 Zzoram wrote: These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job.
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
Not firefighter, but would be client of would be public service
Did you just say te home owner had the freedom not to pay? Of course he did, and he exercised that freedom not to pay. Thats why he didn't get firefighting service.
On October 06 2010 05:44 Zzoram wrote: These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job.
On October 06 2010 05:31 xarthaz wrote:
On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:
On October 06 2010 05:04 Half wrote:
On October 06 2010 05:00 Zzoram wrote:
On October 06 2010 04:54 xM(Z wrote:
On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
Not firefighter, but would be client of would be public service
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense.
So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
Nice attempt but I don't think anyone here will ever understand the "against me" argument. If that's not what you're doing then sorry.
i wonder if the neighbours were even helping to put out the fire. it could just be that they live in a county area and neighbours are far away, but the way this story sounds, i imagine some guy peeking through his window watching people try to put out a fire, and the second he sees it on his property, he calls the fire department, and goes back to whatever he was doing. my mind's eye is silly though...
What a retarded system to have. Seriously, even out in the boonies near where I live there is volunteer fire departments funded by the county they are in. I mean really is it so hard to bill the guy double the fee or whatever after the fact. That's basically the way ambulance services work. You don't pay anything, but get a sizable bill in the mail if you do use one.
If what the news report shows is accurate its absolutely shameful that United States citizens have degenerated to this level. This article basically shows that the National Character of the people sworn to preserve life and property are more interested in maintaining some parasitic system than helping out their fellow human being, countryman, and neighbor. They are sitting there with the trianing , equipment, and the manpower to stop life changing harm from falling on their neighbor and they sit idle watching. If you think about it this is equivalent to holding a life preserver and watching someone drown right next to you.
On October 06 2010 05:55 STS17 wrote: Here's how I see it:
If you elect not to buy Earthquake Insurance and an earthquake destroys your house would you expect to be covered by it?
The Fire Department in this area functions the same way, whether it's a good policy or not is irrelevant.
I agree with what the firefighters did (though I feel the system they use should change and I feel it was morally wrong).
I counter your example with a decent ambulance service. Whether or not you are someone who paid into the ambulance service, if you're in need you will be taken care of an face the charges of having to pay for the service later. Just sitting on your hands for HOURS and watching someone in distress is morally wrong. Your example of an earthquake does not take into account that damage could have been prevented, as quakes will quake.
This policy was adopted in 1990. Who here thinks he didn't pay just this year and county is out to get him for 1 missed pymt? Cause that would change things a lot.
Whether you agree/disagree with this county's way of doing things. You can't have sympathy for the guy. Especially when this guy is likely the type to vote for these types of policies instead of paying little more tax on his property.
Do you guys just not get it? You can't just charge an arbitrary fee on the spot. If the system didn't have a fee structure then they can't accept fees.
The system obviously sucks, but nothing wrong was done by the firefighters within the confines of the system that they live with.
I don't think that anyone, strictly speaking, did anything legally wrong, but there is some sort of community involvement that probably should have happened and didn't. another analysis has been posted here: http://www.samefacts.com/2010/10/conservatism/letting-it-burn/
Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
On October 06 2010 05:42 Myles wrote: Would I like to expect my house to be safe if something happens to it, absolutely. Would I expect if I didn't pay the taxes/fees associated with it, nope.
technically true but again, arguable. mby one cant pay the taxes at that particular time. i would expect that person to get a pass for a while, i would expect you to be able to prove his bad intent (if any) before you cut him off. but even then, when disaster strucks you should never ditch your fellow humans. some people learn from their mistakes, let him make his and change your law after.
On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote: Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
They have no authority to collect any fee because that house was outside their jurisdiction, and whatever bill they try to give the guy after the fact would not have to be paid. Not to mention the home owner could sue the city for any water damage and make a killing since they weren't even supposed to save his house. That's why they only offered service to rural homes that opted to contract with the city for fire fighting service, to cover their costs and cover themselves legally. Again, how many times does this have to be repeated?
It really seems like everyone who is outraged never read the full article and watched the news video, and has no understanding of jurisdiction.
On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote: Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
then you get a dick who sues them for the surcharge, like the dicks who sued people for trying to save them so now only trained personnel can save people else you risk getting sued. This is just mis management by the city and surround area unto how to pay for public services.
The US is quite conservative about the roles of government more after the fall of the USSR hell the US doesn't see some things as human rights. I know a few counties in Europe see housing a a human right the US does not.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being.
On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion)
Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house.
You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self.
Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post.
and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it
It took them whole 2 hours to reach the place only because they didn't want to go there, when the guy called them. The only reason why they went there at all is, because the property of a paying customer was in danger. I assume that if they responded to the first call on time, the situation would not have been even nearly as dangerous as it was by the time they arrived. Maybe I should correct myself: For the first two hours they were not "watching his house burn down and his life get ruined". They "only" condemned his whole future existence by knowingly letting his property burn down, even though most likely it would have been only a small effort to help him.
I have to admit that I have only a limited legal knowledge. However, sueing for water damages, when a fire is being put out, does not sound reasonable to me. The same applies to trespassing especially when there is a dozen or so people that can testify that the man was begging the firefighters to save his house. On the other hand, failure to render assistence is punishable (at least in Germany)...
I can imagine that there might be no legal obligation for him to pay the money they ask for. I still think that preserving somebody's existence is worth more than than any monetary amount. Here we could start over the argument than if they would have saved his home and he did not pay, everybody would cease to make the monthly payments to the fire dept. However, this is only an assumption and in addition I'd imagine that with some changes in legislation it could be prevented that people would not pay in the future.
On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote: Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
They have no authority to collect any fee because that house was outside their jurisdiction, and whatever bill they try to give the guy after the fact would not have to be paid. Not to mention the home owner could sue the city for any water damage and make a killing since they weren't even supposed to save his house. That's why they only offered service to rural homes that opted to contract with the city for fire fighting service, to cover their costs and cover themselves legally. Again, how many times does this have to be repeated?
It really seems like everyone who is outraged never read the full article and watched the news video, and has no understanding of jurisdiction.
Obviously the guy was asking them to save his house so he's asking them to pour the water on his house, even in America I am very doubtful he could win a case for water damage. Save the house first, then discuss payment. If they don't pay the $750 or w/e (10x the standard fee seems about right, still on the low side, but you gotta be reasonable.) Then what I would do, is if they don't pay that or try and bitch out of it light their house on fire the next week and laugh.
Seriously, taking the law into your own hands seems like the best option most of the time imo.
Guys, legal liability is a HUGE DEAL. This is the US of A remember. In this country a robber can sue the home owner for having an unsafe home if he injures himself in the act of robbery. Everyone has policies to cover their ass from litigation.
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being.
On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:
On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote: I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people.
Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees.
Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are.
No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice.
And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right therewatching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion)
Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house.
You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self.
Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post.
and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it
It took them whole 2 hours to reach the place only because they didn't want to go there, when the guy called them. The only reason why they went there at all is, because the property of a paying customer was in danger. I assume that if they responded to the first call on time, the situation would not have been even nearly as dangerous as it was by the time they arrived. Maybe I should correct myself: For the first two hours they were not "watching his house burn down and his life get ruined". They "only" condemned his whole future existence by knowingly letting his property burn down, even though most likely it would have been only a small effort to help him.
I have to admit that I have only a limited legal knowledge. However, sueing for water damages, when a fire is being put out, does not sound reasonable to me. The same applies to trespassing especially when there is a dozen or so people that can testify that the man was begging the firefighters to save his house. On the other hand, failure to render assistence is punishable (at least in Germany)...
I can imagine that there might be no legal obligation for him to pay the money they ask for. I still think that preserving somebody's existence is worth more than than any monetary amount. Here we could start over the argument than if they would have saved his home and he did not pay, everybody would cease to make the monthly payments to the fire dept. However, this is only an assumption and in addition I'd imagine that with some changes in legislation it could be prevented that people would not pay in the future.
Unfortunately, it's not so "unreasonable" here. There are tons of stupid lawsuits that actually win the suing party money when what they are suing for is "unreasonable". This stigma has caused a lot of people to be more hesitant towards helping each other in the U.S. Heck, there's that law in NY I think that says you can't sue someone for helping you, but barely anyone knows of it.
Guys, stop making up fees with fantasy land math. That's not how it works, you can't negotiate with a firefighter over what fee to pay. They don't have authority to create a fee structure on the spot.
I've got mixed feelings on this, in the first place I feel terrible for a family that lost their home that they had lived in for a very long time.
But on the other hand, if every person didn't pay the fee, and WAITED for a fire at their house to pay them, then they wouldn't have any money to pay the fire fighters when a fire comes around. I assume that the 75$ goes to pay the firefighters I don't actually know, correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess they should have put it out then charged them for all the years of fees, and a fine.
What is up with these people? If you are ABLE to fight the fire you WILL, why must you always ask of something in return? These insurances really should be free, or payed for by the government if you will.
This is the greatest thing I have ever read/seen personally.
Basically this guy said "fire protection.. EFF THAT!!" and then when he needed it said "But ill pay now! ill pay now!"
seriously.. how anyone could feel bad for this person is beyond me. He knew exactly what he was gambling on when he didn't pay... he gambled and loss. next time play it safe and you wont lose your house on a gamble.
From an econmic/legal/administrative/etc... standpoint it was probably the right decision of the firefighters to just watch the house burn down. Plethora of arguments in this thread already supporting this view.
However, despite what is an "economically sound policy," the firefighters should have just collectively hosed down the house. This may be an act of "rebellion" that might undermine the entire system, but from a practical view there would likely have been 0 repercussions in terms of what would happen to the firefighters or really putting the insurance policy at jeopardy. They would have likely been reprimanded by the mayor or some other state official, but they would not have been sanctioned for their actions due to the expected community outrage that such a decision would have entailed.
In this manner, both the community furor over the matter wouldn't have happened as well as harming the system in place. Just my thoughts.
On October 06 2010 07:33 Kalpman wrote: What is up with these people? If you are ABLE to fight the fire you WILL, why must you always ask of something in return? These insurances really should be free, or payed for by the government if you will.
They are paid for by the government, for people who pay taxes to the government. This house was outside the city and didn't pay taxes to the city so it didn't get service from the city. The city was nice enough to offer an opt-in system where rural houses outside the city could benefit from city services, but this man didn't pay it. He is owed no service.
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
On October 06 2010 07:35 mnofstl007 wrote: This is the greatest thing I have ever read/seen personally.
Basically this guy said "fire protection.. EFF THAT!!" and then when he needed it said "But ill pay now! ill pay now!"
seriously.. how anyone could feel bad for this person is beyond me. He knew exactly what he was gambling on when he didn't pay... he gambled and loss. next time play it safe and you wont lose your house on a gamble.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
There is a reason why heroes are heroes, because its rare an admirable. Firefighters are not automatically heroes, and these ones did there job as they were required. If you're expecting everyone to be a hero that you're going to be very disappointed in life. And Human Decency gets people shit on all the time now. So much so that people stop being decent because it works out better for them in the end.
Used to be you help someone and they appreciate it. Now you help someone and a lawyer looks for any reason to sue you.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
This goes to show you why services like the fire department should be hired by the municipality rather than on an individual basis. However, in this scenario where people are paying for coverage on an individual basis, they pretty much did what they should have done. If you are able to suddenly hire the fire department only when you need them, nobody would ever pay until the moment their property is in danger. Saying that these fire fighters should have saved this person's property anyway would be like saying an insurance company should have to instantly sell an uninsured person coverage and cover a car accident accident that has happened immediately prior to that coverage having been purchased.
Frankly, it's his own fault that he decided not to pay for the service. He knew full well what could happen, decided to take a gamble to save a few bucks, and lost.
I feel like it's a legitimate service that everyone gets, but if places do this than you should abide to the rules. However, on this note, if the man had 75 dollars on him and gave it to the firemen, they should do something at that point.
On October 06 2010 08:15 Sturmmann wrote: Kinda like a cop watching someone get raped and going "well they forgot to pay taxes last month. serves em right"
Nice hyperbole. You guys are making it sound like the firefighters sat and watched a house burn down with his baby daughter and a litter of cute kittens inside, laughing the entire time. Obviously if there were people trapped in the house, it would add extra consideration to the story (and I like to think the firefighters would have done something about it in that case). But there weren't. The house was property, and it was the mans responsibility to protect it. When he didn't pay the $75, he failed to do that. His loss.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
Sure he can react, but he can't make a police arrest. He might be able to make a citizen's arrest though, he just needs to make sure he follows the proper procedures or the offender would go free on a technicality.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
people who insist on a statist solution to the problem have it wrong. Threatening everyone so that everyone will pay to save one man's house is crazy. That is like the mafia coming to your house and telling you "pay me $2 to put out the bakery's fire or I will kill you." You are enforcing a huge abysmal injustice to try to cover for a tiny injustice.
Privatized fire-fighting has every single reason in the book to save all fires, because that is how they make money. If even ONE fire goes unsaved, everyone will be up in arms and saying how it is immoral and that their company is a bloodsucking parasite living off other people's misfortunes. There are many many ways for a privatized solution to prevent this situation. They could have asked the guy to sign a contract saying if you dont pay the 75$, but you want us to save your house if it catches on fire, then you will consent to paying 7500 in the case that we have to cover your ass. But because of the current violent monopoly on firefighting, no other alternatives are being explored.
Disregarding all utilitarian/arguments for effect for the moment, a government enforced firefighting is morally wrong.
It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune. It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune. It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune.
"But wait!" you say, "If we dont make everyone pay for it, then nobody will!"
Obviously you have not worked as a waiter. Even tourists who just stop by for one meal and will never ever be in town again still pay tips for their meals, and will think you are a horrible person for not paying tips. And yet somehow waiters in good restaurants make a lot more than minimum wage.
The same can be said for food. Two women in communist Russia are in line waiting for bread. Said one to the other, "did you know, in capitalist America, the government doesn't hand out bread to the people!" The other gasped in shock, and replied "But then how will people get food?! The local bakery would have a monopoly on bread and it would charge everyone exuberant prices! And then they would be super rich because bread is a necessity and it would raise its own clone army and take over the world and subject everyone to tyranny and a life of slavery!"
Just because you can't see it, doesnt mean other people won't come up with a peaceful, cheap, voluntary solution to social problems.
That man should become an arsonist and set the fire station on fire. Ok maybe nothing that radical but it was sad thing and whatever happened to taxes in public goods. Oh eastern Tennessee you perplex me.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Yes, he should have paid. NO ONE is disagreeing with that. But we are not talking about freaking McDonalds or Blockbuster here where someone returned a dvd too late or shit like that. All the arguments in this thread supporting what the firefighters did are about them doing thier job so they wont get fired or risc some stupid lawsuit.
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
On October 06 2010 08:46 Zzoram wrote: I've never said this system is good, just that the firefighter's actions were justified considering the system they have to work within.
And I disagree,, along with the majority of people not living in NA i am pretty sure of.
Should just be a 75 dollar tax forcing everyone to partake in fire protection -- its a danger to other folks around you if you don't pick it up. It's not huge, just partake in it.
I'm really conservative in practice, and hate extra fees and taxes (such as the 17,000 dollar fee my uncle just paid just for permission from the county to build a house), but this is ridiculous. Safety is a pretty important feature of society, everyone should be forced to partake in safety (within reason).
Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
Do they have any sympathy whatsoever? That's somebody's house, I don't care if they were being cheap... shit like taking the fire out should be top priority over money.
DaCruise, the fire department in the headlines is one of the municipal FDs in Obion County, Tennessee. If you dislike what they've done, please direct your complaints to the STATE in that area. They are not private. Fire protection is not a free market at all. Stop blaming capitalism, thank you.
On October 06 2010 08:56 TwilightStar wrote: Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
Except the man then wouldn't "have" to. You can't suddenly just make up a contract like that on the spot with a house burning down and make it stick.
Matter of the fact is, I'm sure it wasn't just a sudden douchebaggery decision on their part. It's probably been told to them while training that it's important NOT to put out fires for which they are not contracted.
Well if firefighters are expected to put out fires on properties that they are not being paid to protect, why on earth would anyone pay them at all? If they are going to accept on-the-spot payment, then wouldn't everyone just wait until something goes wrong before paying them? Obviously, if people start getting into this kind of mindset, then fire departments would cease to exist at all since there's no way to sustain such a service with that kind of on-demand payment policy. Enforcing their policy and not protecting this man's property, despite being a horrible moral decision, was a completely justifiable decision in that it preserves the idea that this is a necessary service that people need to pay regularly to maintain. Once you begin to make exceptions to your business policy by rewarding one person that is trying to abuse the system, you open the door of more people to begin making similar excuses and behaving in a similar manner.
I think the fire fighters did the right thing. It wasn't a nice or easy thing,but if you don't pay for the services why should they be provided? The man chose not to pay the fee for the firefighters, and as a result the firefighters didn't help. Fighting fires is a damn dangerous job, and the firefighters shouldn't be expected to risk their lives for a house that doesn't pay for their services.
Seems silly for people to make such a big deal of people who don't pay for fire protection, not receiving fire protection. In my opinion the firefighters not putting out the fire was justified.
On October 06 2010 08:56 TwilightStar wrote: Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
And we have a lawsuit folks.
Also, don't make assumptions about what an entire continent thinks.
Seriously, the naivety of some people in this thread is hilarious. The man got what he deserved, the fire dept did what it was suppose to do given the circumstances, stop crying foul, there isn't any.
For another perspective, try convincing the car insurance company to pay for an incident that you decided that wasn't worth paying coverage for. Everything depends on your access to your car and you can't afford the repairs, what do you think is the right thing to do for the insurance company? This isn't some capitalism at it's worst scenario or bullshit that some people are spewing. I doubt the FFs are swimming in money and the government using gold as paper weights, it's a service provided at a fee. The man decided not to buy the service, and he paid for it.
Also, the firefighters drove out to that man's house to make sure the fire didn't turn into anything big, didn't endanger lives and to check on the man.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
On October 06 2010 08:56 TwilightStar wrote: Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
And we have a lawsuit folks.
Also, don't make assumptions about what an entire continent thinks.
Seriously, the naivety of some people in this thread is hilarious. The man got what he deserved, the fire dept did what it was suppose to do given the circumstances, stop crying foul, there isn't any.
For another perspective, try convincing the car insurance company to pay for an incident that you decided that wasn't worth paying coverage for. Everything depends on your access to your car and you can't afford the repairs, what do you think is the right thing to do for the insurance company? This isn't some capitalism at it's worst scenario or bullshit that some people are spewing. I doubt the FFs are swimming in money and the government using gold as paper weights, it's a service provided at a fee. The man decided not to buy the service, and he paid for it.
Also, the firefighters drove out to that man's house to make sure the fire didn't turn into anything big, didn't endanger lives and to check on the man.
"The man got what he deserved". Who is making assumptions now?!,omg.
I must admit it shines through in this thread that some people dont have a lot of experience in life.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts.
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
Guess what, these firefighters are not from Denmark, so don't judge their actions with your social standards.
On October 06 2010 09:06 LegendaryZ wrote: Well if firefighters are expected to put out fires on properties that they are not being paid to protect, why on earth would anyone pay them at all? If they are going to accept on-the-spot payment, then wouldn't everyone just wait until something goes wrong before paying them? Obviously, if people start getting into this kind of mindset, then fire departments would cease to exist at all since there's no way to sustain such a service with that kind of on-demand payment policy. Enforcing their policy and not protecting this man's property, despite being a horrible moral decision, was a completely justifiable decision in that it preserves the idea that this is a necessary service that people need to pay regularly to maintain. Once you begin to make exceptions to your business policy by rewarding one person that is trying to abuse the system, you open the door of more people to begin making similar excuses and behaving in a similar manner.
I think most people would still pay. Also, they could just collect the same amount of revenue through taxes. Then of course there is the risk that people will say they just don't want fire protection and the government is robbing them, but Americans say things like that all the time anyway.
even if that's policy it would seem a call should have been made for PR purposes to come save the house, they would have got their money. If this fire started in the home, I'd say no chance of saving it anyway in a rural area.. but it didn't. It started by a shed and took a long time to make its way to the house, in fire fighting it is rare to have a shot at saving a home completely.
That being said there are many many things we don't know that could easily fill in the "why" as to how this happened. Fires take lots of time and man power to combat, with cuts to almost all departments nationwide its very possible that saving this home would have taken every resource they had and left the paying rural folks or the citizens who directly pay for fire open. These cuts also mean you should do everything you can to prove you're worth spending the taxes on, PR goes a long way in the fire service.
I'd bet that his insurance would reject any claim he makes too..... He didn't do everything in his power to prevent it (which is usually a standard part of a "get out of jail free" clause that the insurance companies have), ie, he didn't pay the fee and the fire, should he have paid the fee and had it dealt with properly, would not have burned his house down.....
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
On October 06 2010 09:06 LegendaryZ wrote: Well if firefighters are expected to put out fires on properties that they are not being paid to protect, why on earth would anyone pay them at all? If they are going to accept on-the-spot payment, then wouldn't everyone just wait until something goes wrong before paying them? Obviously, if people start getting into this kind of mindset, then fire departments would cease to exist at all since there's no way to sustain such a service with that kind of on-demand payment policy. Enforcing their policy and not protecting this man's property, despite being a horrible moral decision, was a completely justifiable decision in that it preserves the idea that this is a necessary service that people need to pay regularly to maintain. Once you begin to make exceptions to your business policy by rewarding one person that is trying to abuse the system, you open the door of more people to begin making similar excuses and behaving in a similar manner.
I think most people would still pay. Also, they could just collect the same amount of revenue through taxes. Then of course there is the risk that people will say they just don't want fire protection and the government is robbing them, but Americans say things like that all the time anyway.
Why would anyone pay in advance for something that has a very small chance of happening and can be paid for anyway if it actually does happen? I understand America is full of idiots, but even idiots would figure that out.
On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote: A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts.
Phrase the first sentence better please. It doesn't make sense.
It turns out, though, that the fire department in Tennessee was not a private for-profit fire department. It was a government-run fire department. You read that right: the fire department that refused to show up and refused to name a price at which it would show up was run by the government of South Fulton. [...] What's next: blaming libertarians because TSA is taking x-rays of people? Or blaming libertarians because the government is so vicious in the drug war? Or blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy?
On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote: A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee?
On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote: A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee?
I'm asking why it's ok that he get service for something that he didn't pay for. If you're argument is that nothing bad should happen to people, than that's admirable, but not possible. What kind of incentive is there to people to pay for this stuff in advance(and keep the fire department in the shape in needs to be to fight fires) if they know that they'll be saved because the firefighters are nice people?
Seriously, the naivety of some people in this thread is hilarious. The man got what he deserved, the fire dept did what it was suppose to do given the circumstances, stop crying foul, there isn't any.
For another perspective, try convincing the car insurance company to pay for an incident that you decided that wasn't worth paying coverage for. Everything depends on your access to your car and you can't afford the repairs, what do you think is the right thing to do for the insurance company? This isn't some capitalism at it's worst scenario or bullshit that some people are spewing. I doubt the FFs are swimming in money and the government using gold as paper weights, it's a service provided at a fee. The man decided not to buy the service, and he paid for it.
Also, the firefighters drove out to that man's house to make sure the fire didn't turn into anything big, didn't endanger lives and to check on the man.
Seriously, the cold-heartedness of some people in this thread is disturbing. The family just lost its whole livelihood, the fire dept condemned them to a life full of misery, show some compassion, there is a distinct lack of such...
Really, how can you even compare a fire dept to a car insurance? Besides the fact that the fomer is government run, there is quite a difference between losing one object and losing everything you have effectively losing any means of existence. Also, I highly doubt that making this one rescue would have hurt the FF finances severely...
On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote: A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee?
I'm asking why it's ok that he get service for something that he didn't pay for. If you're argument is that nothing bad should happen to people, than that's admirable, but not possible. What kind of incentive is there to people to pay for this stuff in advance(and keep the fire department in the shape in needs to be to fight fires) if they know that they'll be saved because the firefighters are nice people?
Incentive, you ask? How about the payment being mandatory? It basically already is, since the people in the city pay through taxation, which they cannot avoid. Some changes in legislation could offer the same solution for the people living outside of the city's bounds.
Seriously, the naivety of some people in this thread is hilarious. The man got what he deserved, the fire dept did what it was suppose to do given the circumstances, stop crying foul, there isn't any.
For another perspective, try convincing the car insurance company to pay for an incident that you decided that wasn't worth paying coverage for. Everything depends on your access to your car and you can't afford the repairs, what do you think is the right thing to do for the insurance company? This isn't some capitalism at it's worst scenario or bullshit that some people are spewing. I doubt the FFs are swimming in money and the government using gold as paper weights, it's a service provided at a fee. The man decided not to buy the service, and he paid for it.
Also, the firefighters drove out to that man's house to make sure the fire didn't turn into anything big, didn't endanger lives and to check on the man.
Seriously, the cold-heartedness of some people in this thread is disturbing. The family just lost its whole livelihood, the fire dept condemned them to a life full of misery, show some compassion, there is a distinct lack of such...
Really, how can you even compare a fire dept to a car insurance? Besides the fact that the fomer is government run, there is quite a difference between losing one object and losing everything you have effectively losing any means of existence. Also, I highly doubt that making this one rescue would have hurt the FF finances severely. The service is only provided for a fee to the people who live outside of the city's bounds, everybody else was paying for it through taxation. It's not like everybody can simply stop paying their taxes, and as far as the people outside of the city are concerned, some changes in legislation could offer a solution.
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Incentive, you ask? How about the payment being mandatory? It basically already is, since the people in the city pay through taxation, which they cannot avoid. Some changes in legislation could offer the same solution for the people living outside of the city's bounds.
I'd say changing the system would be the best possible solution. However, with the system they had you can't provide people with services they didn't pay for or it just tells other people not to pay for them either.
I don't get why people are so disturbed about the firefighter's actions.
The person who lost his house had the the freedom to protect it from fire for a yearly fee, he chose not to utilize this fee so when his house caught fire he didn't receive the protection he chose not to pay for.
Is the policy wrong? Maybe, but what the firefighter's did was perfectly justified, and in my opinion the smart thing to do. Sure, I would want to not pay for stuff and get free stuff from others, but if they don't give me free shit I don't start calling them douchebags and going YOUR A BAD HUMAN BEING!! GIVE ME MY FREE SHIT NOW!
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote: I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass. This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies. Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on". THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts.
Phrase the first sentence better please. It doesn't make sense.
It actually makes a lot of sense. People always bash US citizens for thinking they're better than everyone else. That's exactly what you're doing here.
Since when do you have to pay a fee for firefighters? what the fuck is that? thats a public service you shouldn't have to pay a fee for it thats why we pay taxes. And that sucks really bad for that guy i don't get why he didn't pay the fee though.
Solution: when there's a fire at somebody's house who didn't pay the fee, you have them sign some paper real quick saying they'll pay twice as much if the firefighters put the fire out. problem solved, fire department gets more money and the guy gets to have his house.
But seriously, paying extra fees for firefighter service? only in some dumbass place like tennessee would you have that rofl.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
On October 06 2010 10:44 funnybananaman wrote: Since when do you have to pay a fee for firefighters? what the fuck is that? thats a public service you shouldn't have to pay a fee for it thats why we pay taxes. And that sucks really bad for that guy i don't get why he didn't pay the fee though.
Solution: when there's a fire at somebody's house who didn't pay the fee, you have them sign some paper real quick saying they'll pay twice as much if the firefighters put the fire out. problem solved, fire department gets more money and the guy gets to have his house.
But seriously, paying extra fees for firefighter service? only in some dumbass place like tennessee would you have that rofl.
I think the guy lives in some rural county that doesn't have it own fire department and the other county doesn't directly tax him unless he willingly pays for the service.
And charging him x2 as much wouldn't be nearly enough to make it fair, it'd have to be much more. I mean I figure most property owners pay for fire/other natural cause insurance for years and years and most likely never have a substantial disaster.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Spoken like a true American not living in a big urban city.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Spoken like a true American not living in a big urban city.
I certainly don't live in a big city - it's small to moderate sized at best. Is that a bad thing or a good thing?
On October 06 2010 11:23 Cloud wrote: Are you saying you would rather have a car than a house?
It really depends on the financial situation. If I have money saved and can rent a car for a while then I'd rather a house. If I'm living day to day with nothing in the bank(as I am now) I'd rather have a car.
Myles you know there are things called car rentals, or maybe you don't even understand the basic economic value of things in general? Your logic is that of a 8 year old farmboy white kid.
Wait, so let me get this straight...Each member of that town has to individually pay some fee for the services of fire fighters? I find the collective tax that pays for all public services to be a lot more efficient than something like that. Plus, it prevents stuff like this from happening. =\
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house....
Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
On October 06 2010 11:43 blahman3344 wrote: Wait, so let me get this straight...Each member of that town has to individually pay some fee for the services of fire fighters? I find the collective tax that pays for all public services to be a lot more efficient than something like that. Plus, it prevents stuff like this from happening. =\
The town where the firefighters came from have a tax that supports the firefighters. The person's house who caught on fire is not in the town, but the town offers him the choice of paying a fee (since they can't tax him) for firefighting services. It sounds like its a really scarcely populated area to begin with, and this person is living either further away from the town.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house....
Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation.
If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time.
I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house....
Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation.
If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time.
But anyways, this is getting off topic.
Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second.
You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
On October 06 2010 12:06 synapse wrote: I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there.
It's too late because unless they charge him total amount of money that goes into the fire deparment/ number of fires stopped a year, (which I would guess would be far far far above the cost of the actual house) the fire department cannot operate on a case-by-case basis.
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house....
Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation.
If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time.
But anyways, this is getting off topic.
Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second.
You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
You're aware at a time like this there are a ton of people with max credit cards, no room for more credit, and even undervalued houses aren't selling? You're right, in a normal situation it'd 99.9% of the time be better to keep the house. And I did make a pretty general comment to start, but I did then specify when it would be better.
I generally believe in "learning the hard way" and that people should face the consequences of their actions, but at the same time I don't think this principle applies when you are faced with substantial loss of property or life.
Obviously the firefighters in this case were within their rights to refuse to help, but that doesn't make their actions commendable.
Imagine that a guy has a heart attack on a plane, and there are calls for a doctor. One guy stands up and says "I'm a doctor! But you know what? Fuck it, this guy isn't my client...I don't owe him anything, just let him die". Or how about a lifeguard working on a beach, who sees a person in trouble in the water outside of his flagged area. "Sorry buddy, not my jurisdiction - not my problem"
We can all agree that these people have no legal duty to help, but at the same it doesn't feel right. This is because a lot of us feel that people who provide services like firefighters and lifeguards have a moral duty to help people when they can, regardless of what their contractual obligations are. To put it another way, if someone needs help and you are standing right there with the skills or equipment required to do so, you should provide the assistance first and ask questions later.
Whoever suggested putting out the fire and then charging him a hefty fee afterwards is on the right track. I don't see why it's necessary to make an example of the unfortunate homeowner in this case. Yes, he's a dumbass for not paying the fee. But does that mean he deserves to lose his house while the firefighters stand around watching? Maybe this guy willingly refused to pay the fee, but what if he never got the letter that told him he had to pay the fee? What if the house was owned by an immigrant family with poor English who didn't understand they had to pay the fee? People will always find ways to be stupid or ignorant, but that doesn't mean they should be denied emergency services in situations where they clearly need it. If it was my house on fire, I would be fucking outraged if these firemen just sat on their asses 50 metres away and watched.
Provide the service to EVERYONE. For those who pay the fee it's "free" (at no additional cost), and for everyone else who doesn't pay then charge an exorbitant amount after the fact.
On October 06 2010 12:06 synapse wrote: I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there.
It's too late because unless they charge him total amount of money that goes into the fire deparment/ number of fires stopped a year, (which I would guess would be far far far above the cost of the actual house) the fire department cannot operate on a case-by-case basis.
The thing is, the fire department is part of the first response team..... Less than 10% of their job is actually putting out fires..... But they still need the equipment for it just in case.
It'll still be a lot of money though. Probably 100 000 bucks or more for his share of their time.....
WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FUCKING MANDATORY!!!!!!
The freaking government needs to make sure idiots don't do anything stupid..... Because if they do, it affects a lot more people than just themselves..... Freedom to make mistakes is nice in theory, but when it affects others, who have no say in your choices, you should be limited, they shouldn't have to suffer for your stupidity.....
And, one thing I've learned - Assume everyone (including yourself) is an idiot..... It makes things so much simpler.....
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll?
EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far.
Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house....
Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation.
If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time.
But anyways, this is getting off topic.
Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second.
You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
You're aware at a time like this there are a ton of people with max credit cards, no room for more credit, and even undervalued houses aren't selling? You're right, in a normal situation it'd 99.9% of the time be better to keep the house. And I did make a pretty general comment to start, but I did then specify when it would be better.
Alright, well we're at a consensus now, eh? .
Although an undervalued house is still most likely going to be worth more than a car that devalues everyday you drive it, especially if you're in that financial situation!!!
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down " Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
On October 06 2010 12:31 FuRong wrote: Provide the service to EVERYONE. For those who pay the fee it's "free" (at no additional cost), and for everyone else who doesn't pay then charge an exorbitant amount after the fact.
That's not how insurance companies work, or else they'd make no money off of 99% of their customers. They capitalize on probability and risk.
And besides, the guy didn't want to pay $75 to keep his house safe. What makes you think he'd want to pay "an exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? To him, his house wasn't worth $75. That's his decision, and he's gotta live with it.
And what if he couldn't afford the "exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? Gonna throw him in jail for not being able to afford an optional fee that he didn't want? That's simply not possible. Gonna take away his house? Oh, the irony
Fire departments could make a living only by answering on-demand calls, who says they inherently cannot. It all depends on the demand of the region. It is also the type of question that a thousand entrepreneurs can approximate an answer to better than any single person or group thinking about it in a forum or congressional hearing alike.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down " Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
both sides are at fault, but when you compare firefighters letting a house burn down as well as dogs and cats die to some guy not paying 75$, you'd have to cringe at the humanity if you were one of the firefighters. wouldn't you disobey authority to save something?
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
...
I'd say changing the system would be the best possible solution. However, with the system they had you can't provide people with services they didn't pay for or it just tells other people not to pay for them either.
I see there was already a discussion about the car-house importance, so I won't comment ont hat, especially after you admited that 99,9% (probably even more) of the population would have far more financial problems if they lost their houses rather than their cars. However, that's quite irrelevant to the topic anyway. Fact is that the family lost its whole livelihood. Fact is that the fire dept would have had very little trouble helping out. Fact is that not helping was a cruel act, no matter how retarded the victim is for not having paid the annual fee. Also, they most certainly can "provide people with services they didn't pay for". The quesion is do they want to. From a humane point of view that's not even a question. Also, stating that the system would fail if they provided the service to a person who did not pay, is only an assumption (even though there is a pretty logical reasoning behind it). As far as the system is concerned, there is still the option to help and change the system thereafter, so it does not get abused. You still run the risk of one person unrightfully profiting, but this won't affect the future of the fire dept.
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote: This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down " Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
I can assure you that many people who condemn the action of the firefighters did read the article/watch the news coverage. Stating that all sympathy posts are ignorant is prejudiced and offensive. First of all, nobody here argues that the victims weren't irresponsible or stupid or whatever else you want to call them. The major problem is the fact that the firefighters refused to assist in a situation that has very serious consequences for the victims even though it would have been only a slight trouble for them to do so. When you have the capability to save a family's whole livelihood (especially in this case where it seems that there was no danger for the firefighters), it is the most civilized and humane thing to do so. The firefighters decided otherwise and that's the reason why people are outraged. Not to mention that condemning somebody to a life of misery because he did not pay $75, $150 or even $1000 is a punishment as disproportionate as sentencing somebody to a life sentence over not having bought a train ticket.
Show up in the ER with no health insurance/money? They treat you. They don't let you bleed to death right in front of them.
This isn't right, its fucking selfish and retarded and the city government and the fire chief should be fucking sacked for making the call. This is effectively arson on the fire department's part, in my eyes.
The pets dying was purely the home owners fault. It took 2 HOURS for the fire to get from the barrels to his house. It's nobody else's fault that he never opened his door and let called his pets out, or even went in to get them when the fire hadn't even got to the house yet.
I don't even understand why a fire department had to be called. If the fire started in some barrels away from the house, why didn't he use his own garden hose to put it out?
WOW, I just read the article - apparently the guy needed to pay $75 to get fire protection. A burned-down house is worth way more than $75...especially when the firefighters are standing there watching. I can't believe this happened like this. Oh well...there's bad firefighters just like there's bad cops too. Heck, people are bad in general. We shouldn't be surprised.
It took 2 hours for the fire to reach the house FROM the barrels. They dont tell us whats in the barrels but he or they had 2 whole hours to ponder a plan, maybe HOSE IT?
On October 06 2010 15:10 Ordained wrote: "Oh your 5 year old is burning to death inside? Oh well you didnt give me $75 for something that Taxes you already pay covers."
Disgusting scam artists.
Of course then you read the article and realized he doesn't pay taxes to the fire department.
I don't think anyones arguing that the system didn't work as intended. I did in fact work very well. What people are arguing is that the system if broken and we would do well to have it replaced by a single payer system.
Now, I think we should move onto what systems would be better to have in place.
My idea is that a country wide Fire Dept should be implemented. So that everyone would be covered and no one would have to worry about their houses burning down. Property Taxes should go down and Federal Taxes would go up (ever so slightly).
Sure, the logistics go further than just taxes. But this is why there is public discourse. The competing systems can be discussed and improved upon before implemented.
Rural areas don't have good pressure and many don't have hoses, they have wells. They could probably bucket brigade water.. but that's fairly useless. What was on fire in the shed makes a large difference too, water in the amounts they could get may have only spread it.
On October 06 2010 15:26 TwentyAPM wrote: Rural areas don't have good pressure and many don't have hoses, they have wells. They could probably bucket brigade water.. but that's fairly useless. What was on fire in the shed makes a large difference too, water in the amounts they could get may have only spread it.
Most trucks can draft water from a pond and use the engine itself to provide pressure. With a tanker truck + portable pond you can have plenty of water as long as there is a natural source (decent size pond or larger) within minutes of the fire.
My comment was directed at the home owner and people saying he had two hours.. not the fire department. Should have quoted the two I guess who said it.
On October 06 2010 07:26 Zzoram wrote: Guys, legal liability is a HUGE DEAL. This is the US of A remember. In this country a robber can sue the home owner for having an unsafe home if he injures himself in the act of robbery. Everyone has policies to cover their ass from litigation.
If there is any agreement which the firedepartment can have with its "regular customers" outside city limits, which allows them to put out fires there without fearing legal liability for water damage (which apparently works), then the same agreement can be filed before the fire was fought. The same system is already in place for ambulances afaik. This legal argument is just lazy in my opinion.
On October 06 2010 12:31 FuRong wrote: Provide the service to EVERYONE. For those who pay the fee it's "free" (at no additional cost), and for everyone else who doesn't pay then charge an exorbitant amount after the fact.
That's not how insurance companies work, or else they'd make no money off of 99% of their customers. They capitalize on probability and risk.
And besides, the guy didn't want to pay $75 to keep his house safe. What makes you think he'd want to pay "an exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? To him, his house wasn't worth $75. That's his decision, and he's gotta live with it.
And what if he couldn't afford the "exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? Gonna throw him in jail for not being able to afford an optional fee that he didn't want? That's simply not possible. Gonna take away his house? Oh, the irony
Funny that just one post above you stress the importance of reading the article and just in your next post you forget your own advice...
Asking for an insurance fee, but if you don't pay then not allowing any access to the service itself!?! That's not how an insurance works! Whatever the city sold was NOT an insurance.
Asking for an insurance fee, but if you don't pay then not allowing any access to the service itself!?! That's not how an insurance works! Whatever the city sold was NOT an insurance.
It's not insurance but it's exactly how insurance works. People pool money together so that no one person has to handle a large financial burden by his/her self. If you get sick and then go "oh now I'll pay any amount, please cover me for insurance" you don't get it because you haven't been paying into the pool of money and only want to extract from it. The same way the firefighter's work.
Sure, you can go to a hospital and pay a shit ton of money, and you can't really do that with firefighters, but that's because there are hospital's who are willing to take care of people without insurance, there are no fire departments willing to work off case-by-case basis alone. Since most people are not stupid enough to neglect fire insurance there's only 1 in a thousand people like this dude who lost his house who would ever hire a private Fire truck vs calling the city fire truck cause they bought "insurance" for fire safety. So if he wants to have access to fire safety without paying into the insurance version, he would have to fund and train an entire fire department solely out of his own pocket, or I dunno he could perhaps buy insurance like a smart person would.
The fire department did not dis allow him access to a private fire company to save his house, but simply there is no private fire departments because its too ineffective to run that way.
Asking for an insurance fee, but if you don't pay then not allowing any access to the service itself!?! That's not how an insurance works! Whatever the city sold was NOT an insurance.
It's not insurance but it's exactly how insurance works. People pool money together so that no one person has to handle a large financial burden by his/her self. If you get sick and then go "oh now I'll pay any amount, please cover me for insurance" you don't get it because you haven't been paying into the pool of money and only want to extract from it. The same way the firefighter's work.
Sure, you can go to a hospital and pay a shit ton of money, and you can't really do that with firefighters, but that's because there are hospital's who are willing to take care of people without insurance, there are no fire departments willing to work off case-by-case basis alone. Since most people are not stupid enough to neglect fire insurance there's only 1 in a thousand people like this dude who lost his house who would ever hire a private Fire truck vs calling the city fire truck cause they bought "insurance" for fire safety. So if he wants to have access to fire safety without paying into the insurance version, he would have to fund and train an entire fire department solely out of his own pocket, or I dunno he could perhaps buy insurance like a smart person would.
The fire department did not dis allow him access to a private fire company to save his house, but simply there is no private fire departments because its too ineffective to run that way.
This is a misconception. It is not at all how an insurance works and I challenge you to name any insurance that works like this. Insurance means: You pay fees -> you get compensation, you don't pay fees -> you don't get compensation. It is instead how a subscription based service works: You pay -> you get service, you don't pay -> you don't get service. It's not rocket science.
To me, two things seem rather obvious: (1) Firefighting should not be organised as a flatrate subscription based service without an instrument for emergency calls (and I doubt any private firefighting company would set up such a ridiculous business model) (2) Firefighters who watch a fire instead of fighting it (or any person with the means and training to aid reasonably) act incorrectly
Obviously this system is dumb. The $75 dollar fee should be mandatory.
However, this system is certainly better than having no fire department at all, which is exactly what would happen if you were able to pay a large lump sum of money whenever your house caught fire. If there were no fires for a while, the fire departments would run out of money pretty quickly. Mahnini explained it very well earlier in the thread.
If I had to guess, I'd say that some people in this area prefer having this system because they don't think their house will ever catch fire, so their local government set this up. This community needs to drop the moronic gambler's mentality, stop trying to get lucky and not have to pay for fire services, and pass whatever laws it needs to to make paying the fire department mandatory.
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.
Also, it was rather infuriating reading all of the ignorant posts from people who seem to have been itching to take potshots at the USA. Just remember when you read some "stupid American" post idiotic drivel about Canada, Germany, NZ, etc. that you are no better if you've done the same here.
You're right, its not insurance in the form of compensation, but it boils down to: do you make small payments in advance to protect yourself if something bad happens or risk losing a-lot more if you don't pay? In both cases paying and getting sick/fire you then get rewarded in form of compensation or service. This man chose not to pay small amounts to cover his house for fire, so he didn't get any service.
The insurance argument has absolutely no merit. You can waive insurance and pay the full fee for a service after the fact (be it medical attention or car repairs).
This guy was simply never given the option to have his house put out.
And that is what all the fuss is about. How can you have a fire department REFUSE to put out a fire if they were offered fair compensation? Especially once they are right fucking there.
How can anyone not see how inherently immoral that is...
Sure you have costs for running a fire department, but I guarantee that putting out a few houses that didn't pay and footing a bill isn't going to send you bankrupt. Most people will still pay the small fee, just like most people will still pay for car insurance they NEVER use, even though it ends up costing them x2 the cost of the car over it's lifetime.
Maybe Obama should work on reforming fire and police department the way he has with the health reform. Who knows, you might end up getting some sense in there.
On October 06 2010 15:10 Ordained wrote: "Oh your 5 year old is burning to death inside? Oh well you didnt give me $75 for something that Taxes you already pay covers."
Disgusting scam artists.
Of course then you read the article and realized he doesn't pay taxes to the fire department.
The event was dubbed "pay for spray" by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. It's a chilling vision of what could play out in a third world America, where paying taxes isn't enough to cover basic services.
Yes, I read it
Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
As others have pointed out, the fire fighters would have subjected themselves to huge liability and other risks had they decided to put the fire out on their own.
If the city declared a policy that it would put out all fires; the $75 fee, pursuant to state law, would likely be regarded as insurance. The city fire dept would then have to apply for the necessary licenses, etc., needed to establish an insurance policy thus increasing firefighting costs and city liability.
Also, the city can not establish law in places other than its city, and would likely be unable to collect (in many scenarios) if it were to try to bill an outsider the cost of putting out the fire.
All that said, the Cpt. should have been a good man and ordered his men to put out the fire regardless of liability.
To all the arrogant home owner sympathizers, since you ignore all the rational analysis found in the thread, I will reinterate them and sincere wish you several thing based on your logics:
1. The firefighters were inhumane! They should have saved the house regardless; in simpler terms, I hope they do so in your region, everyone thanks the heroism of the firefighters but stops paying fire insuarance, and your fire department goes broke. No more fire protection for you! Congratulations!
2. But fire insurance shouldn't be optional! The man should have been taxed or the burden of of fire coverage should have been shared by everyone in the state/country! Well, if this is your logic then you have no fucking idea how politics work I'm afraid. Those very people who are now pissed off at the city and the fire department are the SAME people who most certainly elected the policy makers who PROMISED to make fire insurance optional in the first place. And if you think anyone in their right mind in the city are willing to vote for a politician who advocates a $50/person increase in taxes so that someone living 500km away from you on some redneck hick farm could have fire coverage, then you're really fucking nutters.
3. For those of you cant read, here are the facts in BOLD LETTERS:
- The firefighters did not stand there and WATCH the house burn down for TWO hours. They were not present at the scene until the end.
- The pets died because the owner DIDN'T LET THEM OUT. The fire took TWO hours to spread to the house, he had TWO hours to let the pets out. Speculations are he was betting on the death of his pets garnering him sympathy / compensation.
THE FIREFIGHTERS WERE NOT AT FAULT.
The home owner gambled his chances, and got exactly what he deserved.
On October 06 2010 23:33 muse5187 wrote: ugh the children in here saying he got what he deserved please take a step into the real world, you immature scum. You all make me disgusted.
The fire department is for the city of South Fulton, funded by taxpayers living in South Fulton.
They offer a paid service for non-taxpayers outside city limits. If someone opts not to pay this fee, why the fuck should the fire department of a different municipality risk their lives to put out this retard's house (that he set on fire burning garbage in his backyard)?
It's like refusing to pay car insurance and then calling the insurance company after you crash it and ask if you can be retroactively covered.
A: Because there is no fire dept in his own city/town/whatever.
B: Because it's the right thing to do.
C: Because not helping someone because he didn't pay 75$ (just think about it, he could just have "lost" the bill, or the payement could have been *in transfer*...) its just inhuman.
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 $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message.
Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
It's not run like the cable company.
This house was not IN the city. It was outside city limits, and the residents didn't pay any taxes to the city.
On October 07 2010 00:52 Velr wrote: A: Because there is no fire dept in his own city/town/whatever.
He doesn't live in a city/town. He chooses to live outside a municipality and therefore does not pay municipal taxes. If he wants municipal services, he can pay for them.
B: Because it's the right thing to do.
No, it's not. Some random person who doesn't live in your city calls your city fire department and says come put it out. That's absurd. Firefighters risk their life and limb, they're under no obligation to act like some league of superheroes randomly cavorting around the country looking for fires.
C: Because not helping someone because he didn't pay 75$ (just think about it, he could just have "lost" the bill, or the payement could have been *in transfer*...) its just inhuman freemarked/lawsuit-fear morronism.
There's nothing inhuman about this.
It was just a fucking house. No one died. An idiot who thought 75 bucks per annum was too much to chip in for people risking their lives in burning buildings lost his redneck shack. He didn't think this was worth paying even though he burns garbage in his own yard every year. Who gives a fuck?
I belive most of the North American posters missed a very important point in my post, its my fault i did not stressed it enough. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that our (European so to speak) and NA taxation systems are not very similiar, in fact they are quite different.
There is a huge variety of taxes in USA,
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to many different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as state and federal government.
Back on the topic, the taxation system in my country (and i belive in most of other European countries) is much more simpler (at least in this aspect). When i pay something that is similiar to Your Individual income tax i pay for almost everything (with notable exception of medical care). My govenment does not inform me for what i am paying. It takes my money and use it for education, roads,sewerage, police, firefighting and many other services (though with notable exception of medical care which have its own separate position). Of course there are few exception some of the money ewentually ends in city or county budget. I would not like to go into it to deep, its rather pointless, all You have to know is the fact that Individual Income tax is most important position here and that is the way my government pays for most of the services.
Unless i am mistaken all US citizens have to pay that Individual Income Tax. If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice. Not legaly speaking of course. But hey, You have sometimes to look at Your relation with the government and ask Yourself if everything is okay? The firefighting issue in this topic, is in my opinion certainly an area where something is wrong. Not that my government isnt screwing me too, it does.
But there is no pride in being screwed, stop acting like it is a good thing, its not.
To put it stright and simple, i belive US government should finance firefighting from the money You pay it with your Individual Income Tax.
The US government shouldn't finance firefighting just like it shouldn't finance police not directly atleast. That's up the the state =p. This was just a matter of where the tax should be and it frankly depending on state, it should be at the state level. In California where wild fires are common i would rather have it all at the state level then municipalities which is most cases or in this case individual user?
It was just a fucking house. No one died. An idiot who thought 75 bucks per annum was too much to chip in for people risking their lives in burning buildings lost his redneck shack. He didn't think this was worth paying even though he burns garbage in his own yard every year. Who gives a fuck?"
A home may not be worth something to you, but only a person who has gone through the pain of building/buying (and not inherited) a house knows the true value of it
Also if you read the source article you would have read that they lost two dogs and a cat to the fire. So what are you gonna argue next? That pets are unimportant and dont deserve to be saved?
That guy might just have forgotten to pay his fee, but its most definitely not worthy of such cruel negligence. If not for anything else, I would question the morality of the firemen who felt that it was not even worth lifting a finger to help a fellow human being. The apathy is really shocking and is a reflection of the moral values of today's humanity - Money over everything else.
On October 07 2010 01:30 Yurebis wrote: ^ Is there pride in being taxed?
Of course not, but its realy hard to avoid it isnt it? While most of us cant even think about defending ourselves from the oppresive hand of goverment, we still have some means of influencing the state. Why not use those means to make sure (or at least try) that Your tax money is making Your life (and everyone around You) better, instead of going into someones pocket.
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.
and let the house burn down because of that? as a punishment for not paying 75 dollars? i dont want to live in a world that thinks like that...i saw that you sad "kinda" dont worry
I honestly don't get how people are agreeing this is the right thing to do.. He forgot to pay a $75 fee, come-on....he even offered to pay it when they were there. Seems like a pretty douche move to me to be honest.
Silvanel, I'm not entirely sure how it works in Poland, but it doesn't really work like that in any European country I've ever been in.
Your income tax doesn't directly pay for fire and emergency services. Local or municipal governments do receive a portion of it, but it's directly tied to the number of people who actually live in that municipality. There are also real estate taxes, local business licensure fees, etc.
Your local fire department is not paid for by the government or your general income tax. It's paid for by the budget of your municipal government.
If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice.
People who live in Krakow pay higher real estate taxes than people living in some random small town 50 km outside of Poznan. The firefighters in Krakow get paid more than firefighters in some random small town. Yet all pay the same percentage of income tax. Are people in Krakow "paying twice"?
That guy in Obion county didn't pay any municipal taxes because he didn't live in a city. He in fact didn't pay even once.
If you live in a rental apartment, your landlord is actually paying municipal fees and taxes. If you own your own home, then you pay those yourself.
Also, you don't seem to realize how large the United States are. The country is a federation of states that span an entire continent. The federal government centrally controlling every fire department in the country is ludicrous. That aside, that's not even how it works in tiny Estonia, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that in Poland either. Municipal services are provided by municipal governments.
My wife is actually from one county over from Obion (Dyer), and she's lived both in a city and outside city limits. When they lived outside city limits they paid a fee for fire services like everyone else, because they didn't pay city taxes. This is normal practice in Tennessee and the media is just turning this idiot's screwup into a sob story by distorting the facts.
I think it's terrible that someone lost their house, and even worse that the fire department showed up to watch (whether it have been to make sure it doesnt spread or not.. still a dick-bag move).
At the same time, you don't call up an insurance company AFTER you get into a car accident for coverage. The idea of paying for any type of coverage is that the majority pay for the few that actually end up needing it on the end.
Not showing up because he didn't pay is one thing. Your boss tells you not to go, you don't go. But standing around and watching another man's house burn to the ground? Are you kidding me? That's wrong.
I love all the people saying they want to live in a world where you get things you don't pay for. Yes, living in fantasy land where everyone is taken care of and no one has to worry about anything is nice, but in the real world stuff costs money. Insurance(which is almost exactly what this was) doesn't work if you only pay when you need to.
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.
and let the house burn down because of that? as a punishment for not paying 75 dollars? i dont want to live in a world that thinks like that...i saw that you sad "kinda" dont worry
If they put out fires even if you "forget" to pay the fee, then everyone will "forget", and the actual taxpayers in the city will be forced to pay it for them.
It's just a house that some retard set on fire burning garbage in his backyard. It's sad that his dogs died but he should have got them out of there. If the house went up so fast that he couldn't do it, there's no way the dogs would be alive even if the fire department set out right away (carbon monoxide poisoning kills very fast). All that the fire department could have saved was a badly burned structural frame.
On October 07 2010 01:43 kojinshugi wrote: Silvanel, I'm not entirely sure how it works in Poland, but it doesn't really work like that in any European country I've ever been in.
Your income tax doesn't directly pay for fire and emergency services. Local or municipal governments do receive a portion of it, but it's directly tied to the number of people who actually live in that municipality. There are also real estate taxes, local business licensure fees, etc.
Your local fire department is not paid for by the government or your general income tax. It's paid for by the budget of your municipal government.
If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice.
People who live in Krakow pay higher real estate taxes than people living in some random small town 50 km outside of Poznan. The firefighters in Krakow get paid more than firefighters in some random small town. Yet all pay the same percentage of income tax. Are people in Krakow "paying twice"?
That guy in Obion county didn't pay any municipal taxes because he didn't live in a city. He in fact didn't pay even once.
If you live in a rental apartment, your landlord is actually paying municipal fees and taxes. If you own your own home, then you pay those yourself.
Also, you don't seem to realize how large the United States are. The country is a federation of states that span an entire continent. The federal government centrally controlling every fire department in the country is ludicrous. That aside, that's not even how it works in tiny Estonia, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that in Poland either. Municipal services are provided by municipal governments.
My wife is actually from one county over from Obion (Dyer), and she's lived both in a city and outside city limits. When they lived outside city limits they paid a fee for fire services like everyone else, because they didn't pay city taxes. This is normal practice in Tennessee and the media is just turning this idiot's screwup into a sob story by distorting the facts.
Took me 10 seconds to find it, its in Polish so i dont know if u can read it.
Here is most important part. Główne środki finansowe przeznaczone są jednak na działalność w/w służb PSP i OSP, które funkcjonują w ramach KSRG. Finansowanie jednostek organizacyjnych Państwowej Straży Pożarnej odbywa się z budżetu państwa, w jego 42 (MSWiA) oraz 85 (Wojewodowie) części. Na obszarze powiatu finansowanie PSP odbywa się także na zasadzie dotacji celowej budżetu państwa. W pokrywaniu części kosztów funkcjonowania Państwowej Straży Pożarnej mogą uczestniczyć: gmina, powiat lub samorząd województwa jak i organizatorzy imprez masowych. Uzupełnienie powyższych źródeł finansowania PSP stanowi rezerwa ogólna i rezerwa celowa budżetu państwa, z których sfinansowano między innymi w 2002 r. zakup sprzętu przeciwpowodziowego oraz pokryto koszty udzielonej pomocy humanitarnej i zorganizowania akcji ratowniczej na terenie Czech i Niemiec.
Sorry for Polish folks, i will replace it with English version as soon as i find one.
On October 07 2010 01:45 zak1129 wrote: Not showing up because he didn't pay is one thing. Your boss tells you not to go, you don't go. But standing around and watching another man's house burn to the ground? Are you kidding me? That's wrong.
You're welcome to climb into a burning cracker shack at risk to your own personal safety to save nothing worth saving for someone who doesn't think your life and safety are worth 75 dollars a year, but I don't see why you'd ask someone else to do it.
By the time the fire trucks got there it was waaaay past saving. They contained the fire and let it burn out. But hey, Keith Olbermann gets to show his viewers some righteous indignation and the TV tabloids get their "little man being wronged" sob story, so never mind thinking about this.
On October 07 2010 01:18 Silvanel wrote: I belive most of the North American posters missed a very important point in my post, its my fault i did not stressed it enough. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that our (European so to speak) and NA taxation systems are not very similiar, in fact they are quite different.
There is a huge variety of taxes in USA,
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to many different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as state and federal government.
Back on the topic, the taxation system in my country (and i belive in most of other European countries) is much more simpler (at least in this aspect). When i pay something that is similiar to Your Individual income tax i pay for almost everything (with notable exception of medical care). My govenment does not inform me for what i am paying. It takes my money and use it for education, roads,sewerage, police, firefighting and many other services (though with notable exception of medical care which have its own separate position). Of course there are few exception some of the money ewentually ends in city or county budget. I would not like to go into it to deep, its rather pointless, all You have to know is the fact that Individual Income tax is most important position here and that is the way my government pays for most of the services.
Unless i am mistaken all US citizens have to pay that Individual Income Tax. If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice. Not legaly speaking of course. But hey, You have sometimes to look at Your relation with the government and ask Yourself if everything is okay? The firefighting issue in this topic, is in my opinion certainly an area where something is wrong. Not that my government isnt screwing me too, it does.
But there is no pride in being screwed, stop acting like it is a good thing, its not.
To put it stright and simple, i belive US government should finance firefighting from the money You pay it with your Individual Income Tax.
As you pointed out the taxation system in the united states is quite complex. Your federal income tax, which taxes your income(supprise) and only goes to the federal government and they go and do what ever the hell they want with it. One of the things they do is fund county fire departments, but only if they live up to federal regulation. This is a common case in the united states because the federal government does nto have a way to force states to adopt some laws. This may seem ridiculous to you, but the federal government/state relationship is closer to the EU/independent nations then anything else. What the federal government can do is say "do this or you get no federal funding." This county has opted to not create a county wide firefighting system, and as a result does not get federal funding.
You local property taxes cover local services like sewers, police, fire, EMS ect. Because they are separated into separate taxes you can choose where you live, what services you receive, and how much you pay. By living outside any city he does not have to pay a local property tax. So while you see it as he already paid for the firefighting services, you are wrong. Legally speaking, or otherwise. When I look at my relationship between my local, state and federal government I see that The federal government only has power to effect interstate relations, my state government can make laws that effect the state as a whole, and my local government provides the services I use on a daily basis. I see that If i do not like interaction between the government and my self I can move to some where else in the nation and change a large part of how i interact with the government. I also see that I have more control over the things that effect me most. I can go to town hall and since im 1 of 500,000 or what ever the town population is I have much more of an effect on the system then when I am 1 out of 600,000,000 on the federal level.
It is actually unconstitutional for the federal government to take over local services like you suggest, and honestly I like a system where you can fine tune conditions to a local area instead of having it implemented for 600,000,000 people
Took me 10 seconds to find it, its in Polish so i dont know if u can read it
Google Chrome translated it.
"The main subject of the emergency operating in the municipality are units of Volunteer Fire Brigades. The main costs of equipment, maintenance, training and combat readiness by providing volunteer fire department rests with the municipality. Additional support funds are received from insurance companies which are required to provide 10% of the total revenues accruing from the compulsory insurance against fire in certain fire safety objectives (50 % of this amount is transferred to the PSP). The financing of these units is also carried by the state budget. However, it takes place within a specified range (the funds are transferred subject to their destination only to ensure the combat readiness of these units), and applies only to units included in the TSO national rescue - fire fighting."
The translation is iffy but it seems the state budget only pays for national fire brigades (big fires, etc?) and local small fires are handled by Volunteer Fire Brigades.
I'm not trying to argue that the system in Tennessee couldn't be improved, but it's not as draconian as people make it seem. It's certainly not a huge amount of money, and it is a service provided by a municipality to people who don't live in, or pay taxes to, said municipality.
Also, our tax burdens are massively higher than the US federal income tax. In the end this person opted not to pay a reasonable fee and lost his property. I don't have it in me to feel sorry for every idiot that shoots himself in the foot. Of all the "injustices" in the world or even in rural America, this is just about the least deserving of attention and hand-wringing.
On October 07 2010 01:18 Silvanel wrote: I belive most of the North American posters missed a very important point in my post, its my fault i did not stressed it enough. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that our (European so to speak) and NA taxation systems are not very similiar, in fact they are quite different.
There is a huge variety of taxes in USA,
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to many different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as state and federal government.
Back on the topic, the taxation system in my country (and i belive in most of other European countries) is much more simpler (at least in this aspect). When i pay something that is similiar to Your Individual income tax i pay for almost everything (with notable exception of medical care). My govenment does not inform me for what i am paying. It takes my money and use it for education, roads,sewerage, police, firefighting and many other services (though with notable exception of medical care which have its own separate position). Of course there are few exception some of the money ewentually ends in city or county budget. I would not like to go into it to deep, its rather pointless, all You have to know is the fact that Individual Income tax is most important position here and that is the way my government pays for most of the services.
Unless i am mistaken all US citizens have to pay that Individual Income Tax. If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice. Not legaly speaking of course. But hey, You have sometimes to look at Your relation with the government and ask Yourself if everything is okay? The firefighting issue in this topic, is in my opinion certainly an area where something is wrong. Not that my government isnt screwing me too, it does.
But there is no pride in being screwed, stop acting like it is a good thing, its not.
To put it stright and simple, i belive US government should finance firefighting from the money You pay it with your Individual Income Tax.
As you pointed out the taxation system in the united states is quite complex. Your federal income tax, which taxes your income(supprise) and only goes to the federal government and they go and do what ever the hell they want with it. One of the things they do is fund county fire departments, but only if they live up to federal regulation. This is a common case in the united states because the federal government does nto have a way to force states to adopt some laws. This may seem ridiculous to you, but the federal government/state relationship is closer to the EU/independent nations then anything else. What the federal government can do is say "do this or you get no federal funding." This county has opted to not create a county wide firefighting system, and as a result does not get federal funding.
You local property taxes cover local services like sewers, police, fire, EMS ect. Because they are separated into separate taxes you can choose where you live, what services you receive, and how much you pay. By living outside any city he does not have to pay a local property tax. So while you see it as he already paid for the firefighting services, you are wrong. Legally speaking, or otherwise. When I look at my relationship between my local, state and federal government I see that The federal government only has power to effect interstate relations, my state government can make laws that effect the state as a whole, and my local government provides the services I use on a daily basis. I see that If i do not like interaction between the government and my self I can move to some where else in the nation and change a large part of how i interact with the government. I also see that I have more control over the things that effect me most. I can go to town hall and since im 1 of 500,000 or what ever the town population is I have much more of an effect on the system then when I am 1 out of 600,000,000 on the federal level.
It is actually unconstitutional for the federal government to take over local services like you suggest, and honestly I like a system where you can fine tune conditions to a local area instead of having it implemented for 600,000,000 people
Thanks for clarification, i kind expected it looks that way. Its still strange for me why a county would opt for self financed firefighting while it could be founded by govenment? Is goverment founded firefighting somwhat inferior to county founded? (I am just asking i honestly dont know how it is in US).
And slightly off topic, what do You get for the taxes You pay stright to the federal government? Apart for the army?
While this may seem a bit "ruthless" or just absurd to imagine, it makes sense. The man did not pay his fee. When he needed the services that this fee would have provided (putting a fire out), he opted to pay for it. That's unfair. These firemen get paid by doing their job through the payments that people pay (such as this man's payment). Of course, I'm not saying that a fireman's wage is entirely based off of a fee like this, but you all get the idea.
In the end, being a fireman is a job. And in a job, you do what gets you money. Sure, maybe one may have the mindset of "Well, they are firemen -- they should be saving people because that's what they do and should be honored to do so" or something of that sort. It's kind of like a doctor. Doctors are OBLIGATED by some sort of oath before officially becoming a doctor that they will do their best to help patients (I'm pretty sure on this, and if I'm wrong, it's something along these lines). Firemen, on the other hand do not live by any sort of oath.
Thus, the man who DID pay his fee got the service he payed for and didn't try to conserve his money until he needed it. I mean, come on, if someone just refuses to pay and only pays when needed, EVERYONE would do that. How frequently do you think you're going to have a fire in your home that requires the assistance of the Fire Department? Rarely, I would say. Since it's rare, you can easily save money by NOT paying it at all because you'll just assume a fire will never happen to you. On the other hand, when it finally does happen to you, you opt to pay it? But through that whole duration of not paying until the fateful seconds of your home burning down, you now want to pay it? Hah.
The firemen did the right thing. It's their job. They're not going to sit their and risk their lives for a guy who clearly thought the assistance of the fire department would never be needed.
Sometimes a "dick" move (what society may deem that the firefighters have done) is the right move -- unfortunate to say.
On October 07 2010 01:18 Silvanel wrote: I belive most of the North American posters missed a very important point in my post, its my fault i did not stressed it enough. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that our (European so to speak) and NA taxation systems are not very similiar, in fact they are quite different.
There is a huge variety of taxes in USA,
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to many different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as state and federal government.
Back on the topic, the taxation system in my country (and i belive in most of other European countries) is much more simpler (at least in this aspect). When i pay something that is similiar to Your Individual income tax i pay for almost everything (with notable exception of medical care). My govenment does not inform me for what i am paying. It takes my money and use it for education, roads,sewerage, police, firefighting and many other services (though with notable exception of medical care which have its own separate position). Of course there are few exception some of the money ewentually ends in city or county budget. I would not like to go into it to deep, its rather pointless, all You have to know is the fact that Individual Income tax is most important position here and that is the way my government pays for most of the services.
Unless i am mistaken all US citizens have to pay that Individual Income Tax. If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice. Not legaly speaking of course. But hey, You have sometimes to look at Your relation with the government and ask Yourself if everything is okay? The firefighting issue in this topic, is in my opinion certainly an area where something is wrong. Not that my government isnt screwing me too, it does.
But there is no pride in being screwed, stop acting like it is a good thing, its not.
To put it stright and simple, i belive US government should finance firefighting from the money You pay it with your Individual Income Tax.
As you pointed out the taxation system in the united states is quite complex. Your federal income tax, which taxes your income(supprise) and only goes to the federal government and they go and do what ever the hell they want with it. One of the things they do is fund county fire departments, but only if they live up to federal regulation. This is a common case in the united states because the federal government does nto have a way to force states to adopt some laws. This may seem ridiculous to you, but the federal government/state relationship is closer to the EU/independent nations then anything else. What the federal government can do is say "do this or you get no federal funding." This county has opted to not create a county wide firefighting system, and as a result does not get federal funding.
You local property taxes cover local services like sewers, police, fire, EMS ect. Because they are separated into separate taxes you can choose where you live, what services you receive, and how much you pay. By living outside any city he does not have to pay a local property tax. So while you see it as he already paid for the firefighting services, you are wrong. Legally speaking, or otherwise. When I look at my relationship between my local, state and federal government I see that The federal government only has power to effect interstate relations, my state government can make laws that effect the state as a whole, and my local government provides the services I use on a daily basis. I see that If i do not like interaction between the government and my self I can move to some where else in the nation and change a large part of how i interact with the government. I also see that I have more control over the things that effect me most. I can go to town hall and since im 1 of 500,000 or what ever the town population is I have much more of an effect on the system then when I am 1 out of 600,000,000 on the federal level.
It is actually unconstitutional for the federal government to take over local services like you suggest, and honestly I like a system where you can fine tune conditions to a local area instead of having it implemented for 600,000,000 people
Thanks for clarification, i kind expected it looks that way. Its still strange for me why a county would opt for self financed firefighting while it could be founded by govenment? Is goverment founded firefighting somwhat inferior to county founded? (I am just asking i honestly dont know how it is in US).
And slightly off topic, what do You get for the taxes You pay stright to the federal government? Apart for the army?
Taxes rarely pay for one thing and there is rarely just 1 tax on something. Esp in the US which probably has one of the messiest taxing system esp concerning income tax.
Took me 10 seconds to find it, its in Polish so i dont know if u can read it
Google Chrome translated it.
"The main subject of the emergency operating in the municipality are units of Volunteer Fire Brigades. The main costs of equipment, maintenance, training and combat readiness by providing volunteer fire department rests with the municipality. Additional support funds are received from insurance companies which are required to provide 10% of the total revenues accruing from the compulsory insurance against fire in certain fire safety objectives (50 % of this amount is transferred to the PSP). The financing of these units is also carried by the state budget. However, it takes place within a specified range (the funds are transferred subject to their destination only to ensure the combat readiness of these units), and applies only to units included in the TSO national rescue - fire fighting."
The translation is iffy but it seems the state budget only pays for national fire brigades (big fires, etc?) and local small fires are handled by Volunteer Fire Brigades.
I'm not trying to argue that the system in Tennessee couldn't be improved, but it's not as draconian as people make it seem. It's certainly not a huge amount of money, and it is a service provided by a municipality to people who don't live in, or pay taxes to, said municipality.
Also, our tax burdens are massively higher than the US federal income tax. In the end this person opted not to pay a reasonable fee and lost his property. I don't have it in me to feel sorry for every idiot that shoots himself in the foot. Of all the "injustices" in the world or even in rural America, this is just about the least deserving of attention and hand-wringing.
Not realy (regarding translation), since there is no other option, I will translate the main points. 1.In Poland we have two kinds of firefighting units PSP and OSP. PSP is professional (meaning the only thing they do is firefighting) OSP is bulid of volunteers (trained ofcourse), they have their other jobs and are only called when needed. OSP is especially helpfull in some less populated areas of the country. 2.BOTH are government founded, directly and indirectly (through some agencies) 3.The city/county authorities may (but dont have to) also support both PSP and OSP, and of course they do it, that money comes both from land taxes and our income tax (since govenment returns some of taxpayers money to county/city to let them spend it any way they like. 4.PSP AND OSP also have some other ways founding, UE resources, insurance companies and such.
My main point is that, hell their (US) system isnt perfect (mine (Polish) is not too), but perhpas this event will make Them reconsider, if everything is the way They want it to be. It can be done different You see.
On October 07 2010 01:18 Silvanel wrote: I belive most of the North American posters missed a very important point in my post, its my fault i did not stressed it enough. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that our (European so to speak) and NA taxation systems are not very similiar, in fact they are quite different.
There is a huge variety of taxes in USA,
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to many different levels of government and many methods of taxation. United States taxation includes local government, possibly including one or more of municipal, township, district and county governments. It also includes regional entities such as school and utility, and transit districts as well as state and federal government.
Back on the topic, the taxation system in my country (and i belive in most of other European countries) is much more simpler (at least in this aspect). When i pay something that is similiar to Your Individual income tax i pay for almost everything (with notable exception of medical care). My govenment does not inform me for what i am paying. It takes my money and use it for education, roads,sewerage, police, firefighting and many other services (though with notable exception of medical care which have its own separate position). Of course there are few exception some of the money ewentually ends in city or county budget. I would not like to go into it to deep, its rather pointless, all You have to know is the fact that Individual Income tax is most important position here and that is the way my government pays for most of the services.
Unless i am mistaken all US citizens have to pay that Individual Income Tax. If that is so, we can safely assume that person in question (the one that lost its house) is paying above mentioned tax.For me he already paid his share for the firefighting, and for a lot of other things. In fact it seems to me that if he would pay the firefighting fee he would in fact paid for it twice. Not legaly speaking of course. But hey, You have sometimes to look at Your relation with the government and ask Yourself if everything is okay? The firefighting issue in this topic, is in my opinion certainly an area where something is wrong. Not that my government isnt screwing me too, it does.
But there is no pride in being screwed, stop acting like it is a good thing, its not.
To put it stright and simple, i belive US government should finance firefighting from the money You pay it with your Individual Income Tax.
As you pointed out the taxation system in the united states is quite complex. Your federal income tax, which taxes your income(supprise) and only goes to the federal government and they go and do what ever the hell they want with it. One of the things they do is fund county fire departments, but only if they live up to federal regulation. This is a common case in the united states because the federal government does nto have a way to force states to adopt some laws. This may seem ridiculous to you, but the federal government/state relationship is closer to the EU/independent nations then anything else. What the federal government can do is say "do this or you get no federal funding." This county has opted to not create a county wide firefighting system, and as a result does not get federal funding.
You local property taxes cover local services like sewers, police, fire, EMS ect. Because they are separated into separate taxes you can choose where you live, what services you receive, and how much you pay. By living outside any city he does not have to pay a local property tax. So while you see it as he already paid for the firefighting services, you are wrong. Legally speaking, or otherwise. When I look at my relationship between my local, state and federal government I see that The federal government only has power to effect interstate relations, my state government can make laws that effect the state as a whole, and my local government provides the services I use on a daily basis. I see that If i do not like interaction between the government and my self I can move to some where else in the nation and change a large part of how i interact with the government. I also see that I have more control over the things that effect me most. I can go to town hall and since im 1 of 500,000 or what ever the town population is I have much more of an effect on the system then when I am 1 out of 600,000,000 on the federal level.
It is actually unconstitutional for the federal government to take over local services like you suggest, and honestly I like a system where you can fine tune conditions to a local area instead of having it implemented for 600,000,000 people
Thanks for clarification, i kind expected it looks that way. Its still strange for me why a county would opt for self financed firefighting while it could be founded by govenment? Is goverment founded firefighting somwhat inferior to county founded? (I am just asking i honestly dont know how it is in US).
And slightly off topic, what do You get for the taxes You pay stright to the federal government? Apart for the army?
The firefighters in the country are government funded, the question is just what level of government. There are many levels, from smallest to largest there are municipal, county, state, and federal. You could fit a few more in there if you wanted to nit-pick, but those are the major ones. The federal government does provide some assistance to county controlled and funded fire departments, this is because counties are the smallest level that cover 100% of the nation. There are areas, such as where this man lived, that are not covered by any municipal government.
As for why we don't have, or want a state or federal firefighting system, its because the US is fucking huge. having smaller independent county fire departments reduces the amount of overhead in the bureaucracy, so more of the money we put into the fire departments goes to equipment, and paying firefighters instead of going to state and federal managers. There is currently a problem that many cities are trying to save money and are cutting fire, police, and education services, I can only imagine this problem would be worse if it was federally controlled because in essence the same amount of money would need to provide for everything it currently does, as well as additional bureaucracy to coordinate the more complex federal system.
What do we get from federal taxes, the military, FBI, Federal emergency management Agency Evrometnal protection agency, Food and Drug Administration, the interstate highway system and a bunch of other stuff. More or less we get organizations that control things that go on between states. A lot of the money also gets channeled back to the state level governments, which is then given to the local level. An example of this is the Federal government will not provide any money to the states to maintain their highways if the state does not set the minimum drinking age at 21. This is a constitutional issue because the federal government does not have the power to make any laws about the drinking age, so it uses these indirect ways to enforce it.
On October 06 2010 17:57 foxmeep wrote: The insurance argument has absolutely no merit. You can waive insurance and pay the full fee for a service after the fact (be it medical attention or car repairs).
This guy was simply never given the option to have his house put out.
And that is what all the fuss is about. How can you have a fire department REFUSE to put out a fire if they were offered fair compensation? Especially once they are right fucking there.
How can anyone not see how inherently immoral that is...
Sure you have costs for running a fire department, but I guarantee that putting out a few houses that didn't pay and footing a bill isn't going to send you bankrupt. Most people will still pay the small fee, just like most people will still pay for car insurance they NEVER use, even though it ends up costing them x2 the cost of the car over it's lifetime.
Your analogy is a little off. You can pay for not having fire protection after the fact just like you can pay for medical attention and car repairs. The cost is your house + whatever is inside of it. If you total your car without insurance, you pay for a new car. If your house catches fire and you have no fire protection, you pay for a new house. There is no "fair compensation" here for the fire department other than the cost of an entire house. Fire departments don't get money from changing tires, doing oil changes, or whatever else an autoshop makes money on. They need constant funding and contribution from everybody or they simply won't have the money to put out any fires at all.
If you want to get upset, take it out on the politician who decided to make fire protection optional in this area. This guy is clearly not responsible enough to make this kind of decision on his own. They should have made the fee mandatory or taken it out of whatever local taxes he pays.
On October 07 2010 02:19 Moody wrote: Last I checked, America wasn't a Socialist country... yet.
Sadly ;P But seriously you should start to learn from the central and west European states. A hybrid system of a slightly controlled market combined with social security has proven way more usefull than your totally outdated system. You still think in the terms of the cold war where everything that has to do with socialism means dictatorship and evil. The modern way of buisness that is taught in most elite universities borrows and builds upon most of the economical ideas that Marx had. A couple of insurances will not hurt your country. Anyway I just wanted to say that in Germany firefighters still are the most respected job in the country. It is considered honourable because you risk your life to save others. I honestly do not care if they were told to stay put. If you have the tools and skills to help a fellow human being then it is your duty to do so.
On October 07 2010 02:24 Silvanel wrote: My main point is that, hell their (US) system isnt perfect (mine (Polish) is not too), but perhpas this event will make Them reconsider, if everything is the way They want it to be. It can be done different You see.
But my point is that this is a non-event. The media is making it out to be some horrific tragedy and oppression of the common man, but it really isn't.
Every responsible adult in that area, that doesn't live in a city where the fire dept is funded by taxes, pays this fee to a municipality that then responds to emergencies. This idiot didn't, and lost his house.
Many people don't use smoke detectors in their homes. Thousands of people worldwide die from this, in their sleep, every day. Should the government hire people to go into their houses and check the batteries in their smoke detectors?
This guy just lost property, material items. He also lost his dogs but I really can't imagine a situation where they could have been saved, regardless of whether the fire department responded to the call or not. As I said, if the house was burning so badly that they couldn't let the dogs out themselves, then the dogs would be dead within minutes from CO poisoning.
I agree that this system doesn't protect idiots from themselves, and therefore is also a danger to others (such as the poor dogs that belonged to the idiot). I think a better system would be some legislation that would require that anyone who doesn't pay the annual fee but calls the fire department then owes them 100 years of fees (or 7500 dollars in this case) for putting out the fire.
It's not as if this happens all the time. It's not as if this person pays municipal taxes and is then double taxed by the municipal government for basic emergency services. That county does have a system in place that provides everyone access to emergency services, it's just slightly more dependent on personal responsibility than some of us are used to. But it's not evil, heartless, or any such hyperbolic nonsense.
On October 07 2010 03:05 luckybeni2 wrote: Anyway I just wanted to say that in Germany firefighters still are the most respected job in the country. It is considered honourable because you risk your life to save others. I honestly do not care if they were told to stay put. If you have the tools and skills to help a fellow human being then it is your duty to do so.
No one's life was in danger. Just the charred remains of an idiot's cracker box.
He doesn't respect firefighters enough to pay them six dollars and 25 cents (less than the price of lunch) a month for risking their lives, I really don't see why they should risk their safety to put out a burning pile of plywood.
EDIT:
Moody's comment is retarded. This has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism. Less Keith Olbermann, more common sense.
The problem with the after-the-fact-fees is that there will be idiots who waffle on the decision, then proceed to blame the fire department for their incompetence, followed by some stupid lawsuit where they sue the local fire dept. for damages. It's not worth the trouble.
I also don't understand the hyperbolic analogies people are bringing up or the irrelevant arguments of morality along with capitalism/socialism of foreign countries. It's really not that big of a deal, he CHOSE not to have fire coverage, he gets to live with the consequences.
For those of you offering mandatory services in one way or another, watch what happens when that gets proposed in Tennessee. Your "experiences", "models" and "examples" is completely irrelevant. Watch what happens if you try to implement that kind of a system in TN.
On October 07 2010 02:19 Moody wrote: Last I checked, America wasn't a Socialist country... yet.
Sadly ;P But seriously you should start to learn from the central and west European states. A hybrid system of a slightly controlled market combined with social security has proven way more usefull than your totally outdated system. You still think in the terms of the cold war where everything that has to do with socialism means dictatorship and evil. The modern way of buisness that is taught in most elite universities borrows and builds upon most of the economical ideas that Marx had. A couple of insurances will not hurt your country. Anyway I just wanted to say that in Germany firefighters still are the most respected job in the country. It is considered honourable because you risk your life to save others. I honestly do not care if they were told to stay put. If you have the tools and skills to help a fellow human being then it is your duty to do so.
We do have a hybrid system, America has adopted many socialist programs over the last 100 years, we're just a few decades behind most of Europe. Honestly our progress is impressive considering what a huge portion of this country is still struggling with the basic concepts of secularity.
Any way, I agree that regardless of bad policy these firefighters have completely failed in their primary duty of helping another human being. They didn't pay the fee? Fine; put the fire out and send them a bill for it. But to stand there and watch it happen while callously refusing to help over a matter of principle? It wasn't even a matter of money, they offered to pay anything... It disgusts me that something like this could happen in our country.
On October 07 2010 03:21 No_Roo wrote: But to stand there and watch it happen while callously refusing to help over a matter of principle? It wasn't even a matter of money, they offered to pay anything... It disgusts me that something like this could happen in our country.
That's not what happened.
They just didn't respond to his call because he wasn't part of their "jurisdiction".
Two hours later they went there because another person who they were under contract with called them. At this point the first guy's house was just a flaming pile of timber. What difference would it make for them to put it out? They didn't stand there for hours roasting marshmallows on his house.
On October 07 2010 03:21 No_Roo wrote: But to stand there and watch it happen while callously refusing to help over a matter of principle? It wasn't even a matter of money, they offered to pay anything... It disgusts me that something like this could happen in our country.
That's not what happened.
They just didn't respond to his call because he wasn't part of their "jurisdiction".
Two hours later they went there because another person who they were under contract with called them. At this point the first guy's house was just a flaming pile of timber. What difference would it make for them to put it out? They didn't stand there for hours roasting marshmallows on his house.
Proximity isn't relevant to my disgust. Dispatchers to sit there and listen to it is just as bad.
On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote: The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote: The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
No, not at all. First of all, you are one of those people. Who is going to tax him? He doesn't live in any municipal area with a fire station. He has nowhere to pay taxes to. Guess what happens if you eliminate the fee? He gets taxed $75. That's the economic equivalent. And what are you going to tax him on? Property tax? Once again, he doesn't live in a city with a fire station.
Fining him leads to people being aware of the fine and not paying the $75. Ironic that you are stating you have some basic concept of economics. Even if you made the fee an exorbitant amount, no one would pay the fee. It'd just be a bunch of angry people wondering when their house DOES burn down why they are being charged $7,500 or whatever amount.
Effort firefighters would have put forth? What if the situation was more dangerous? Is it now a case-by-case basis? It's not a net loss for the economy at all simply because rational people would see hte situation and see him being saved anyways.
Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyways unacceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics.
EDIT: Can we start buying life insurance for family members after they die, for something like 10 times what the premium payment is? Pretty please?!
On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote: The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
He does not pay taxes. He is outside any town, so he pays nothing to the municipal taxes, which fund the fire department. The town laws have no application outside the town boundaries, so they can make what ever laws they want, and the farmers in the surrounding area still don't need to follow them, and can still sue for extortion in this situation.
Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway unacceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of taxation and civics.
I'm starting to think that this towns policy exists because as a way to try to force them into finally accepting a county fire department. The county said they were going to do it ~20 years ago, there is a very well thought out and reasonable plan that has been in circulation since 2008. Maybe this will finally get the county to actually take action.
On October 07 2010 04:40 Ancestral wrote: .....The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
How can you manage to make every single sentence logically wrong like that?
On October 07 2010 04:56 NukeTheBunnys wrote: I'm starting to think that this towns policy exists because as a way to try to force them into finally accepting a county fire department. The county said they were going to do it ~20 years ago, there is a very well thought out and reasonable plan that has been in circulation since 2008. Maybe this will finally get the county to actually take action.
Yes I think so too. This is just another political move by yet another political entity. People who disagree are just ignorant of science, logic, economics, politics, and everything else IMO.
On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote: The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
I am so glad you understand how this system came into being. I am so glad that you think you understand how economics and civics works as well.
The amount of people pretending to understand the context of the situation is mind boggling indeed.
On October 07 2010 04:32 kojinshugi wrote: So basically if my house in DC catches fire I should call the FDNY and then whine if they don't dispatch a brigade?
This is a serious discussion, stop being glib. You will call 911report a fire (as these people did, they did not call a fire department) and 911 dispatchers will dispatch the closest available unit. That is why we have dispatchers in the first place.
On October 06 2010 10:44 funnybananaman wrote: Since when do you have to pay a fee for firefighters? what the fuck is that? thats a public service you shouldn't have to pay a fee for it thats why we pay taxes. And that sucks really bad for that guy i don't get why he didn't pay the fee though.
Solution: when there's a fire at somebody's house who didn't pay the fee, you have them sign some paper real quick saying they'll pay twice as much if the firefighters put the fire out. problem solved, fire department gets more money and the guy gets to have his house.
But seriously, paying extra fees for firefighter service? only in some dumbass place like tennessee would you have that rofl.
I think the guy lives in some rural county that doesn't have it own fire department and the other county doesn't directly tax him unless he willingly pays for the service.
And charging him x2 as much wouldn't be nearly enough to make it fair, it'd have to be much more. I mean I figure most property owners pay for fire/other natural cause insurance for years and years and most likely never have a substantial disaster.
Well this isn't talking about paying for fire insurance its talking about paying for firefighting service, very different. firefighters do their best to save ur house if its on fire but they don't reimburse you for any damage that the fire does. Insurance reimburses you for damage from the fire but doesn't help fight the fire which is what we're talking about. and the firefighting service costs 75$ according to the article a year so why wouldn't twice as much be fair? the extra 75 would be for paying late i guess.. idk. but i guess no one would pay the 75 every year if the thought they could just pay 150 if there was actually a fire (which in all probability there won't be so you won't pay anything, i.e. if you have 1 fire every 3 years you pay less paying 150 per fire than 75 a year. So the county would actually lose a ton of money that way, yeah never mind. That guy should have payed the bill idk why he wouldn't.
By the way the International Association of fire fighters have condemned the city of south fulton and the fire department involved over this incident. Good call.
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”
On October 07 2010 04:49 FabledIntegral wrote: The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
you mean emergencies like a house fire? i mean every time the firefighters are needed its an emergency lol. and i agree that would make sense but apparently the ppl who have to pay $75 for firefighters don't live in the same county that provides the firefighting service so the county isn't allowed to tax them.
On October 07 2010 05:32 No_Roo wrote: By the way the International Association of fire fighters have condemned the city of south fulton and the fire department involved over this incident. Good call.
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”
An interesting note, especially when you consider that South Fulton is a volunteer fire department. I doubt this changes their statement at all, but I would have thought they would do more research.
On October 07 2010 04:49 FabledIntegral wrote: The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
you mean emergencies like a house fire? i mean every time the firefighters are needed its an emergency lol. and i agree that would make sense but apparently the ppl who have to pay $75 for firefighters don't live in the same county that provides the firefighting service so the county isn't allowed to tax them.
On October 06 2010 18:05 Ordained wrote: Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
I was under the impression that they don't.
Sorry, didnt know that an entire city's "Firefighters" were paid solely off of a once a year $75 payment by each household. I just dont buy that. How big is the Fire department? $75 from every house in the town would never be able to cover everything. Where do they get the rest of their living expenses? Are they volunteer firefighters with other jobs?
Where does their pay come from?
This is like saying a police officer can give you traffic citations but unless you pay them $75 yearly they wont find your daughter who got kidnapped and raped.
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote: It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Mass media? It's a .PDF on a website that no one has ever heard of.
As for political move, I suppose you could say that. They probably only want to associate their institution with the kind of fire fighters that put fires out.
People have a gut reaction when they see that firefighters "let a house burn down". If the man had been allowed to pay the fee after the fact, the moral hazard would be so great that no one would have an incentive to pay the fee in the first place. So people say, it should have been funded by taxes, even though in this situation, the rural area makes that not feasible or the voters are unwilling to consent to taxes. You have to design a system in the context of what is politically possible.. What many people I think have not considered is that the man may have made the right decision by choosing not to pay the fire fee.
Of course after the fact, you can say he should have paid the fee. But you cant make decisions like that because you cant know the future with certainty. You can only speak of the likelihood of future events. If he judged the probability of his property catching fire low enough, then the decision to not pay the fee would have been optimal in terms of expected value theory.
The problem of moral hazard is often overlooked. You see this in support for many government programs. Freakanomics, if you ever get a chance to read it, has a good explanation of this problem. Sometimes you just have to let the house burn, or there will be no fire department and more houses will burn.
Mass media means that someone like you can find it relatively quickly if they so inclined to. You don't think if someone wanted to make a story or spin this one way or another can't spend 10 mins digging up all of the major representative groups for firefighters and ask for their take on the situation?
On October 06 2010 18:05 Ordained wrote: Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
I was under the impression that they don't.
Sorry, didnt know that an entire city's "Firefighters" were paid solely off of a once a year $75 payment by each household. I just dont buy that. How big is the Fire department? $75 from every house in the town would never be able to cover everything. Where do they get the rest of their living expenses? Are they volunteer firefighters with other jobs?
Where does their pay come from?
This is like saying a police officer can give you traffic citations but unless you pay them $75 yearly they wont find your daughter who got kidnapped and raped.
This is why I truly hate my country some times.
You love making assumptions then proceeding to run with them don't you? No one cares if you buy it or not, the fact is that you don't have an idea how the budget is broken up and how much resources the department gets, but insists on asking irrelevant questions that have no bearing on the matter.
On October 06 2010 18:05 Ordained wrote: Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
I was under the impression that they don't.
Sorry, didnt know that an entire city's "Firefighters" were paid solely off of a once a year $75 payment by each household. I just dont buy that. How big is the Fire department? $75 from every house in the town would never be able to cover everything. Where do they get the rest of their living expenses? Are they volunteer firefighters with other jobs?
Where does their pay come from?
This is like saying a police officer can give you traffic citations but unless you pay them $75 yearly they wont find your daughter who got kidnapped and raped.
This is why I truly hate my country some times.
They probably would get fired if the refused to help a tax payer. This man is not a tax payer. He lives outside the city and pays no local taxes, only those outside the city have the $75 fee. The amount the people in the city pay for fire coverage probably does amount to about $75 a year, but i have no way of verifying that. The reason they operate on so little is because there are a small number of fires a year, so while everyone in the city is paying the same only a few actually end up using the service. The department also charges $500 for responding to a call, this is pretty standard method of operation.
On October 07 2010 06:02 treekiller wrote: People have a gut reaction when they see that firefighters "let a house burn down". If the man had been allowed to pay the fee after the fact, the moral hazard would be so great that no one would have an incentive to pay the fee in the first place. So people say, it should have been funded by taxes, even though in this situation, the rural area makes that not feasible or the voters are unwilling to consent to taxes. You have to design a system in the context of what is politically possible.. What many people I think have not considered is that the man may have made the right decision by choosing not to pay the fire fee.
Of course after the fact, you can say he should have paid the fee. But you cant make decisions like that because you cant know the future with certainty. You can only speak of the likelihood of future events. If he judged the probability of his property catching fire low enough, then the decision to not pay the fee would have been optimal in terms of expected value theory.
The problem of moral hazard is often overlooked. You see this in support for many government programs. Freakanomics, if you ever get a chance to read it, has a good explanation of this problem. Sometimes you just have to let the house burn, or there will be no fire department and more houses will burn.
No this not the issue, the people who lost their house and two dogs offered to pay _any_ amount of money, not just the $75 fee. They were prepared to pay the cost of fighting the fire, which probably would have been few thousand dollars, the fire department still refused on the principle of "it's too late". Paying a few thousand dollars seems like a more than reasonable punishment for people that forgot to send off a $75 check one year.
On October 07 2010 05:32 No_Roo wrote: By the way the International Association of fire fighters have condemned the city of south fulton and the fire department involved over this incident. Good call.
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”
An interesting note, especially when you consider that South Fulton is a volunteer fire department. I doubt this changes their statement at all, but I would have thought they would do more research.
In here it says "Statistics indicate that the majority of all fire calls are rural in nature and are responded to by municipal fire departments. These departments are solely funded by the tax dollars belonging to each individual town or city.", emphasis mine
I don't know how much they get ofc but the information all points toward the FDs within Obion County being all city-ran and city-funded.
And for those saying that a FD can't live w\o tax or subscription, well, these folks may be one of many testament that it's possible. Everything is possible... for a price. Here it says $1200 an hour lol.
Nukebunny why do you call them volunteers if they're being paid through taxes?
I this a tough one for me. On one hand I do think it is dickish that they let a property worth hundreds of thousands of dollar burn down over a 75 dollars fee. On the other hand, the fire didn't pose a danger to anyone lives and the fire fighter are technically not obligated to save that house. You then also have to consider the consequences of saving the house of a homeowner who refuses to pay for the services until the fire come knocking at his door. Saving that house might encourage more people outside of the city are to stop paying for the coverage fee making it financially impossible to cover anyone outside the city limit at all.
The way this service work from my point of view is similar to health or car insurance where it is only financially feasible to pay for a patience medical cost by using the funding of the many other subscriber who don't require those very expensive medical operation. Lastly, we don't know the exact cost of keeping the fire station operational. Did anyone even imagine that the reason why is only cost 75 dollars a year for the services was because of the hundreds of household who pay, only a few will ever require it.
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.)
I love how people argue for this without even considering how pathetic it is on a moral level. I guess it's easier to make judgments when you completely ignore one aspect of the equation. It fails completely on an economic level as well, but that's beside the point.
On October 07 2010 07:13 fireb0rn wrote: I love how people argue for this without even considering how pathetic it is on a moral level. I guess it's easier to make judgments when you completely ignore one aspect of the equation. It fails completely on an economic level as well, but that's beside the point.
I totally agree with this.
It's shocking for me to see how people are justifying the firefighters behavior.
In my country, fire fighters work volunteer. A friend of mine work at night on the FD, in the day he studies. When he works on a fire or a rescue, he would never ask if the persons involved pays their taxes or don't.. I don't even imagine a firefighter letting a house burn...
They had all the means to save the house, still they won't move because the owner of the house didn't pay a $75 check?!? They partially ruined the lives of a whole family there...
Is it really ALL about money and payments?
I've always admire firefighters for their bravery, in this case they are just a bunch of losers who didn't get any better job.
This story is so sad... Sometimes I think Americans are sick people who have lost all sense of humanity.
On October 07 2010 07:59 trulla wrote: This story is so sad... Sometimes I think Americans are sick people who have lost all sense of humanity.
I totally agree...the sad part is, I live in America and I know how true it is. We started out good, but we're turning out bad. It's only a matter of time before someone pounds the U.S. into the ground.
The thing is if there was someone inside they would be required to try to save the person, but if you don't pay no protection on the house, they won't watch someone burn alive for a fee, but they will let your house burn down, if they didn't than what's the point of the fee? no one should pay it than right?
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote: Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Absolutely pathetic, and no, it does NOT make sense.
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality. They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out. For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
Basically this a lose-lose situation. The guy's family lost their home. The firefighters are getting a lot of flak both locally and in the media. The system failed. Just another case of incompetent bureaucrats. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
With that said, I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. This idiot had two hours to let his pets out. What the fuck was he doing?
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Well this thread already pretty much goes in circles every few pages it basically resets in comments.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality.
No they are not. There's a reason why there's a 75 dollar fee. Firefighting is not a pay as you go service. It's not filling up your gas tank whenever you need to, they do not function like a gas station.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out.
Cool, you should think it out yourself. Do I want my taxes covering someone who isn't paying them? So I should pay fire coverage for both my area and theirs? No thanks.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
First of all, what is the entire cost and the fees to fight it? Secondly, what do you think this will look like on the news? Considering 80% of the people who replied to this thread couldn't even read the damn original article, what conclusion do you think people will jump to? Lastly, the homeowner can challenge the bill in court if he/she/they feel like if the firefighters at fault.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
Yeah, guess how much that costs and how much crap the city would get if firefighters were actually negligent in their duties. You really want the firefighters wondering if they have to navigate a legal quagmire when they're fighting fires? Look at the police departments around the country after a few highly publicized (and justified) cases on police brutality.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: Absolutely pathetic, and no, it does NOT make sense.
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality. They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out. For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.
But this is a whining document begging the county for a county-wide fire tax so, I think its a lie that they couldn't collect, they're just being dicks so the county is pressured to tax everyone and give them moneyz.
On October 07 2010 10:12 Judicator wrote: Except how it would pressure the rural areas, who are the population of relevance here?
It doesn't even have to convince the rednecks of Obion, I think making the national headlines is pressure enough for the county to go "gee we just have to raise property taxes/make a new fire tax". But this is just a conspiracy theory, don't bother questioning.
On October 07 2010 10:12 Judicator wrote: Except how it would pressure the rural areas, who are the population of relevance here?
It doesn't even have to convince the rednecks of Obion, I think making the national headlines is pressure enough for the county to go "gee we just have to raise property taxes/make a new fire tax". But this is just a conspiracy theory, don't bother questioning.
I mean national exposure how? It's not like the final vote is up to the local citizens...oh wait it is.
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote: Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster.
The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this.
When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality.
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote: No they are not. There's a reason why there's a 75 dollar fee. Firefighting is not a pay as you go service. It's not filling up your gas tank whenever you need to, they do not function like a gas station.
As I understand it, the 75 dollar fee is for people outside the city who want fire protection. People within the city just pay tax like usual. Part of those taxes are given to the fire department. Am I wrong here?
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out.
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote: Cool, you should think it out yourself. Do I want my taxes covering someone who isn't paying them? So I should pay fire coverage for both my area and theirs? No thanks.
Do you even read this stuff this stuff before you reply? No one's paying for anyone else. If you don't pay the fee then you pay the entire cost of the service, as laid out by the fire department beforehand. The link to the private firefighting service someone gave up above says $1200 an hour. Obviously that's enough for them to make a profit.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote: First of all, what is the entire cost and the fees to fight it? Secondly, what do you think this will look like on the news? Considering 80% of the people who replied to this thread couldn't even read the damn original article, what conclusion do you think people will jump to? Lastly, the homeowner can challenge the bill in court if he/she/they feel like if the firefighters at fault.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. What are the costs and fees of any service? The firefighters need money to use and maintain their equipment and they should be compensated for their work and time (if they're not volunteers). They can stipulate a charge like any other service. Obviously they shouldn't try to gouge their customers. This is a basic service. The media will only have a story if the department is overcharging their customers. No one will have a problem if they charge a similar rate as other fire departments. If you don't want to have to pay a lot of cash then you should have bought the insurance. Does the media run stories every time someone without medical insurance gets a big hospital bill? I'm actually curious, since we have medicare up here in Canada.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote: As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
On October 07 2010 09:49 Judicator wrote:Yeah, guess how much that costs and how much crap the city would get if firefighters were actually negligent in their duties. You really want the firefighters wondering if they have to navigate a legal quagmire when they're fighting fires? Look at the police departments around the country after a few highly publicized (and justified) cases on police brutality.
Honestly I don't understand this. Someone enlighten me. Let's say I'm outside county jurisdiction and have paid my $75 fire protection fee. Do I no longer have the right to sue firefighters if I think they've been negligent while fighting the fire? What's the difference (legally) between someone who pays the fee and someone who doesn't? Anyways, I'm sure there's a work around for all this legal stuff considering there are private firefighting services.
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote: Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster.
The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this.
When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires.
There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not.
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote: Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster.
The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this.
When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires.
There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not.
Yes the difference is that fire departments are a social welfare institution. I am not saying a fire department would fund it's self solely from fires that they report to. I am telling you that the damages for them operating outside of their coverage area are LIMITED to the cost of the operation. I am also telling you that despite this, the fire department had an obligation to put that fire out (and then collect their damages in the form of a bill, and later a lawsuit if the bill went unpaid) and the International Association of Fire Fighters agrees with that. Their statement again: http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote: Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
That argument is flawed. The purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the cost of getting sick/injured. The purpose of homeowners insurance (Not a 75$ fire coverage fee), which this person has and will be recovering some of his losses from is responsible for mitigating the cost of rebuilding the house after a disaster.
The fire department has "damages" by law by sending a truck out to a fire to some one not covered that they have a legal right to collect on. The damages for the fire department are the cost of the operation ( the resources used, truck,labor,equipment etc.) and NOT the cost of running the fire department. American law is very clear on this.
When a tow truck tows your car away you are responsible by law for the cost of the towing operation, not the operation of the towing company.
Fire departments don't work like towing companies. They cannot function by simply charging people whenever there is a fire. They need to be ready and available 24/7/365 or else nobody gets any fire protection. Cars get towed on an hourly basis, their work is consistent enough to support a business model where they charge people after the car is towed. Fires are much rarer, and the costs of keeping a fire department operational are much higher. If fire departments did try to work under the same model as a towing company, they would run out of money within weeks and there would be nobody to respond to any fires.
There's a reason most fire departments are funded by taxes and often staffed with volunteers while towing companies are not.
Yes the difference is that fire departments are a social welfare institution. I am not saying a fire department would fund it's self solely from fires that they report to. I am telling you that the damages for them operating outside of their coverage area are LIMITED to the cost of the operation. I am also telling you that despite this, the fire department had an obligation to put that fire out (and then collect their damages in the form of a bill, and later a lawsuit if the bill went unpaid) and the International Association of Fire Fighters agrees with that. Their statement again: http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf
Ok your wording that time made it more clear to me. I definitely understand where you are coming from now. I'm now asking myself, is it better/cheaper to live outside of the jurisdiction of a fire department and be able to pay for the cost of the operation than to have it covered by your taxes? If that is the case, I'm not sure that's fair to the people living inside the department's jurisdiction. I guess what I'm trying to ask is why don't the two cities (municipalities, whatever they are) work out an agreement that extends the coverage area to protect everyone?
85%~ of the time firefighters are dispatched it is because of a medical emergency. Only 15% of their calls have to do with fire. They can't just get paid when your house is on fire because house fires don't happen that often.
i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote: i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote: i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
I'm going to choose to avoid reading most posts of this thread to post my opinion. Yes, it seems like a bad thing that the firefighters do - however, they are simply enforcing their 75$ fee by not saving his house. If there weren't serious consequences to not paying the 75$, then no one would pay it and act as freeloaders. Eventually, this would lead to a failure of the fire department system (as it is set up), and likely it would dissolve (as far as I understand). Yeah, its hard, but its what they have to do. (its pretty fair to compare this to a loose form of "insurance", at least strictly in definition and not in comparison. Simply acts as a one time payment of risk aversion pooled together by many people to help avoid a low probability, high cost event from happening, again, as far as I understand it)
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote: i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
Judicator, it is not necessary for a majority of the people to agree with an act for it to pass, it only had to be deemed "necessary" enough by the representatives. If you want a real example, see the 800 billion bailout in 2008, where the disapproval ratings through letters sent to congressmen was... I don't know how much but must have been like >90%, and it still passed.
I kinda feel like the United States and even the world would be a better place if people read what other people have said on a particular issue before voicing their opinion on that issue.
I also kinda feel like the United States would be a better place if people were happy and comfortable with the knowledge that some of their taxes would be going towards helping those poorer than them because tacitly that means those with greater income will be helping them, the people who are happy and comfortable, everyone.
That said, the fire department is morally questionable but ethically justified.
On October 07 2010 12:24 jon arbuckle wrote: I kinda feel like the United States and even the world would be a better place if people read what other people have said on a particular issue before voicing their opinion on that issue.
I also kinda feel like the United States would be a better place if people were happy and comfortable with the knowledge that some of their taxes would be going towards helping those poorer than them because tacitly that means those with greater income will be helping them, the people who are happy and comfortable, everyone.
That said, the fire department is morally questionable but ethically justified.
I'd like to feel that way, but how I generally feel is that I'm just being leeched off of. Way too may people take advantage of the system.
On October 07 2010 12:24 Yurebis wrote: Judicator, it is not necessary for a majority of the people to agree with an act for it to pass, it only had to be deemed "necessary" enough by the representatives. If you want a real example, see the 800 billion bailout in 2008, where the disapproval ratings through letters sent to congressmen was... I don't know how much but must have been like >90%, and it still passed.
Local governments don't function the same way like the national ones. Good try though.
Also, you have pointed to the bailout that is playing a giant role in this upcoming election season....unless you are happy with passing a temporary proposition.
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote: i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
I'm not here to argue. I'm just here here to give my 2 cents.
But here's what's funny.. You called me out for not knowing what actually happens in the ER.. but little did u know i actually work in healthcare. next time i will make sure to include this little detail in my first posts in case you embarass yourself again.
Woman says firefighters blameless in house burning
"'You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do,' Cranic told The Associated Press. 'I've had firemen call and apologize.'.... Her grandson, Lance Cranic, 21, who lived there with her and her husband, started the fire while burning trash in a barrel. He went inside to take a shower and upon returning saw a shed next to the house in flames. It spread despite his efforts to put it out with a garden hose. Paulette Cranic said they had paid the fee in the past, although sometimes late, but it slipped their mind this year... 'We have insurance and are happy everyone is alive,' she said."
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote: The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Bolded the part you decided to ignore. I understand why the system is what it is. It's not the worst solution ever, however that doesn't mean they can't try to find a way to improve it. If people in this area are really dumb enough to not pay this optional, small fee, then the government needs to step in and babysit them in some way.
Yeah, and they'll cry big government, and vote it down. Please, you clearly have no idea how people think around here.
On October 07 2010 11:20 wxwx wrote: i agree that the guy is a moron, but the firefighters did NOT do the right thing.
'you get what u paid for' is ingrained into our society, but once u get to jobs that start dealing with people's health/safety then compassion has to play a role.
if a patient shows up at the ER without insurance, i would treat him even if it were against hospital rules. Doesn't even matter how much of a moron he was about paying insurance. Why would I be thinking about money when someone's life is in danger?
In this case we're not talking about life/health, but it's pretty damn close. Losing your home and all your possessions in it, that's probably your whole life in there. For the fire department to let everything this guy owns slowly burn down because of $75 just shows how little compassion they have.
Imagine if you are trapped inside a burning building.. If these firefighters are more concerned with $75 than with someone's house burning down, would these same firefighters risk their life to save yours? Even if I paid the fee, I would be scared shitless.
Wishful thinking. Keep bringing your idea of how society works into this thread, instead of how it actually works.
I know over 50 doctors and almost all of them have had this situation happen before and just treated the patient even though they had no insurance. And i will also do the same.
Sure you do. That's cool though, let's talk about it from the patient's perspective then, are they legally required to pay the fee? Yes. Are the hospitals allowed to collect their fees? Yes. Are there repercussions for not paying the fee? Yes. See the inherent failure to your argument?
Your comment is actually why his argument is sensible, hospital treats the person, then charges the person, and due process is sought to collect on that bill. We're saying the same "luxury" should have been extended by this fire department which is by analogy, put the fire out, then send the bill for it (This bill would be much larger than $75, and the Craniks were willing to pay it).
On October 07 2010 12:24 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.
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 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?
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 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.
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 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.
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).
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 14:43 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 14:43 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.
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 14:43 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 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.
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 :\
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 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.
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote: It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Yeah, you'd be the kind of person to condemn a doc for treating some uninsured patient (that had to wait for hours) first in order to better help him. "It's a political move", what a great statement, you must have studied their political agenda and long-time goals.
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote: It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Mass media? It's a .PDF on a website that no one has ever heard of.
As for political move, I suppose you could say that. They probably only want to associate their institution with the kind of fire fighters that put fires out.
Hahaha well said, it's a shame when someone argues for hours only to see his point shattered.
On October 06 2010 04:16 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The system in place with firefighting running on fees is downright insane. It's very fucked up to want a society where houses are burned down with firefighters watching it happen. But once you have that nutso system in place what else can you do but adhere to it? The only thing worse than having firefighting running on fees is having it not run at all something which will happen if fees are not paid. It's gross but the only solution to me is to change the system and not this individual happening.
Spot on. It's useless to argue whether those firefighters were at fault, they had very little choice. The system itself is completely idiotic. People will always need someone to wipe the drool off their faces, things like fire protection should stay untouchable. Arguments along the lines of "well wouldn't you want to buy your car insurance only after you crashed your car" are absurd too, as far as I know in most states it is illegal to operate an uninsured vehicle and that's the way it should be. Things like health care, education and fire protection for everyone should be top priority for any civilized society.
I'm not even getting into an ethical aspect of this, a firefighter should never be told to watch the house burn down. This is just insane and I feel sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise.
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.
By farm worker I meant someone who works in the fields picking crops. One of the most unskilled labors around that comprises 95% of its workforce from spanish immigrants. I know it's not always as easy as to just go get a job, but there have been millions of people who pulled themselves out of poverty by doing exactly that. They got a crappy job and worked up from there.
And I can appreciate second chances, I know I've had a few, but what about accountability? It's not the kids fault that he didn't see the value of an education or listen to people who told them about it? When someone makes a bad decision do they not deserve to reap the consequences? I didn't like chemistry or math or school at all for that matter, but I knew if I didn't get decent grades then it would only make my life more difficult. And plus, that burger flipper can work hard and maybe get a supervisor position. Hell, a McDonalds vice president(or something like that) started as a line cook.
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote: It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Yeah, you'd be the kind of person to condemn a doc for treating some uninsured patient (that had to wait for hours) first in order to better help him. "It's a political move", what a great statement, you must have studied their political agenda and long-time goals.
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote: It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Mass media? It's a .PDF on a website that no one has ever heard of.
As for political move, I suppose you could say that. They probably only want to associate their institution with the kind of fire fighters that put fires out.
Hahaha well said, it's a shame when someone argues for hours only to see his point shattered.
On October 06 2010 04:16 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The system in place with firefighting running on fees is downright insane. It's very fucked up to want a society where houses are burned down with firefighters watching it happen. But once you have that nutso system in place what else can you do but adhere to it? The only thing worse than having firefighting running on fees is having it not run at all something which will happen if fees are not paid. It's gross but the only solution to me is to change the system and not this individual happening.
Spot on. It's useless to argue whether those firefighters were at fault, they had very little choice. The system itself is completely idiotic. People will always need someone to wipe the drool off their faces, things like fire protection should stay untouchable. Arguments along the lines of "well wouldn't you want to buy your car insurance only after you crashed your car" are absurd too, as far as I know in most states it is illegal to operate an uninsured vehicle and that's the way it should be. Things like health care, education and fire protection for everyone should be top priority for any civilized society.
I'm not even getting into an ethical aspect of this, a firefighter should never be told to watch the house burn down. This is just insane and I feel sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise.
Yeah, you'd must be the only person that doesn't read the article before commenting...yeah...oh wait...must be nice to realize that one's argument is "shattered" because one can't read.
Clearly you don't understand social pressures and think that everyone works on some kind of naive pure basis. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, especially with pundits/blogs/internet around.
Also clearly you don't seem to understand the mindset of people around here or my original points, because you along with everyone else clearly seems to think that rural regions around here like being "governed" and that you can just enact rules that you deem to be crucial (whether it actually is crucial is not relevant, the very notion of it pisses people off around here).
I never would have thought tl was so chock full of ruthless and ignorant children who are so sheltered from the real world they think someone deserves to lose their home over $75, like it is no big deal at all. I don't give a shit if I would have lost my job I would NEVER stand there and let this man lose his home. This mindset is not very "american" in any way shape or form. I fear for the future generation.
On October 07 2010 22:06 muse5187 wrote: I never would have thought tl was so chock full of ruthless and ignorant children who are so sheltered from the real world they think someone deserves to lose their home over $75, like it is no big deal at all. I don't give a shit if I would have lost my job I would NEVER stand there and let this man lose his home. This mindset is not very "american" in any way shape or form. I fear for the future generation.
Its not just 75 bucks from one person. It is 75 bucks from potentially thousands of households, every year, that should be going to the fire department but isn't because they are not paying it. Its a giant gamble, and eventually someone is going to get burned.
The system is fucking disgusting. Not the actions of the firefighters.
EPT
)
![[image loading]](http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6520/1265320839939.jpg)
, they had the recourcess, and we go with the decisions those who own something make to own more - I would argue if this is the best outcome.![[image loading]](http://images6.cpcache.com/product_zoom/181627766v1_225x225_Front_padToSquare-true.jpg)
I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/AERONET_La_Jolla.2007297.aqua.250m.jpg/800px-AERONET_La_Jolla.2007297.aqua.250m.jpg)
