Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Elwar]

Irrelevant. The system would work because most people would take the $75 bet to avoid the $2,000 risk. And if that wasn't the case then raise the risk to $10,000. And maybe if there is only 1 fire a month then firefighters could do more than just fight fires. (Most do by the way. I often see 2 or 3 fire trucks pull up to a house that's not of fire but where someone inside has had a heart attack or something. Often 1 ambulance would have been enough).

When I was given the option of $20 per month or $2,000 for a house fire I opted out of the $20 per month.

I figured that the odds of having a fire over the course of 16 years which would amount to $2,000 worth of payments was low. And if the unfortunate thing did happen where my house burned down, the insurance company would pay me enough to build a new house. With that money I would be able to pay toward the $2,000 fee.

 

[odamn]

Actually, the concept of Personal responsibility would make every person a member of the "Fire Dept" permanently.
It is a duty to your fellow man.
Just as Law enforcement and Militia are the duty of every person.

Baloney.
No one cares more about you, than you do.
The $75. a year is a steal.
It's 2 cents a day.

 

[PreDeadMan]

If you don't take care of your body... you can get sick you can get cancer etc..... a hedge against that is to try to each healthy and exercise. If you drink and drive there's a pretty high possibility that you will get into an accident... a hedge against that is to not get drunk and drive in a car. if you don't buy insurance ... health, and in this case fire insurance when something happens after the fact and you had the chance to have a hedge against it by buying the insurance well i'm sorry but if we want to be responsible adults we must take responsibility for our actions. I don't see anything wrong with a private fire department putting out the fire for "x" dollars if the person didn't pay for insurance the cost will be much higher as a consequence though.Surely if there was no government monopoly on a myriad of services things would be cheaper and more efficient for the "customers'.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Nobody thinks their house is going to burn down but if they are smart they are willing to pay a little bit just in case so that if it DOES catch on fire, the fire department will put it out or the insurance company will pay to rebuild it. If the fire department will put it out, or the insurance company will rebuild it, regardless of whether or not you paid for the coverage, what moron would continue to pay the coverage?

Casualty insurance is an extremely useful product of the ingenuity of the free market. It allows people to protect themselves against certain rare events for very little money. But some folks here call this extremely useful risk pooling immoral? Wow.

You CAN'T run a risk pooling business by charging people AFTER they have a casualty. You would have to charge enough from just a handful of people to cover the entire cost of the business. It won't work. They won't pay. After you save the house they will tell you to screw yourself or declare bankruptcy. Then what? The business goes under and nobody gets fire protection. Think it through folks.

While in this particular instance it is a government operation (shouldn't be) it is the identical business model to all of the private fire departments I know of. And essential to the business model is that if you don't buy the insurance, your house burns down.

Obama fixed that though. Obamacare means you don't actually have to get insurance until you need it, and you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. He figured out the flaw in the insurance model.

(yes I'm being sarcastic, lol. You're totally correct, people do not understand the concept of insurance—our president is among them)

 

[roho76]

Non sequitur. You aren't even making an argument. You are saying "oh they're cheap so they deserve what happened to them."
That is immoral and doesn't even come near addressing my point. There is a difference between morally acceptable and legally acceptable.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "they deserve it because they are cheap". I said that if you don't care about your house and the well being of the people inside it then why should anybody else.

IT'S $75

Don't be so cheap and don't bitch when that which you failed to protect yourself from happens.

Also I'm not saying that nobody should help them. If someone wants to jump in and help put out the fire then great. If I was there and there were people inside I would be one of the first people to help in anyway I could. I'm not an animal. This is the same argument the "something for nothing" crowd makes. I have a right to health care, I have a right to food, I have a right to money, I have a right to your services without paying.

 

[Original_Intent]

An easy solution would be for the city to send out a form with three options.

1) pay the $75 fee
2) agree to pay the full cost of $xx,xxx in the event of a fire (that way, no duress of the heat of the moment)
3) waive any fire response. Failure to respond with either 1) or 2) would mean that 3) is the default choice.

and at that point, I have no complaints with the firemen or the city letting someone's house burn. choices and consequences, that's liberty.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Calling the fire department is almost as bad as calling the cops.

Better to stop it and take care of it yourself than to wait around.

 

[Danke]

So eliminate all the property taxes and sales taxes etc that the local govenment takes from me and all I have to pay is $75 bucks a year? Sign me up.

 

[Verrater]

IT'S $75

Don't be so cheap and don't bitch when that which you failed to protect yourself from happens.

I never said they had a right to bitch. For god sakes get some damn reading comprehension.

Also I'm not saying that nobody should help them. If someone wants to jump in and help put out the fire then great. If I was there and there were people inside I would be one of the first people to help in anyway I could. I'm not an animal. This is the same argument the "something for nothing" crowd makes. I have a right to health care, I have a right to food, I have a right to money, I have a right to your services without paying.

WTF?
There is a difference between compulsion and moral duty! This is the same argument Ron Paul makes to both sides of the stupidity of this argument. We shouldn't let people die, it is our moral responsibility to help people but that doesn't mean it's our legal responsibility and it also doesn't mean people should be forced to help others by physical or monetary means.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "they deserve it because they are cheap". I said that if you don't care about your house and the well being of the people inside it then why should anybody else.

Do you even read what you write?

Some people choose to learn using the brick wall method. Don't be so cheap.

So what your saying is even though you're to cheap to pay $75 to protect your home and god for bid anybody in it that someone else should risk their life to save your ass.

Why do you expect others to do it for free because youre too cheap.

But that is even completely besides the point.
What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
Legally acceptable, but STILL IMMORAL.

Is it that hard a concept?

 

[Lucille]

Calling the fire department is almost as bad as calling the cops.

Better to stop it and take care of it yourself than to wait around.

+rep

 

[pcosmar]

Actually, the concept of Personal responsibility would make every person a member of the "Fire Dept" permanently.
It is a duty to your fellow man.
Just as Law enforcement and Militia are the duty of every person.

Baloney.

This is exactly what is wrong with this country.

What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
What they did was immoral.
Legally acceptable, but STILL IMMORAL.

Is it that hard a concept?

It seems to be a concept lost on many.

 

[Verrater]

This is exactly what is wrong with this country.


It seems to be a concept lost on many.

I think it might be the creation of a false dichotomy in their minds.
That you either have to the selfish king john or robin hood.
When in fact you can be the profitable yet generous friar tuck.

That's the best analogy i can think of.

 

[Moo2400]

I don't think it's immoral for a fire department to watch a person's house burn down when they refused to pay for their service. I would believe it to be immoral if there were people trapped in there, but otherwise, I don't see why a fire department should be compelled morally or legally to protect a person's property when that person never paid to have it protected, and that appears to be what happened in this case. If the person didn't want to pay a small fee annually to get it protected from fires, then what right do they have to expect somebody else, even if morally, to protect it for them? Attitudes like that led to local governments abolishing fire departments and running them themselves.

 

[Revolution9]

This house paid property tax. For that they get?????

Some of you folks are blindly pathetic with your rhetorical stances. The last folks I would want in a TEOTWAWKI situation within ten miles of my camp. Keep prancing about like privileged little princes in fancy costumes plastered with labels. One day your immoral money centered philosophy will rear up and bite yer ass like a hungry dragon. Seen it before. Happens all the time..etc..

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I don't think it's immoral for a fire department to watch a person's house burn down when they refused to pay for their service.

It is moral to stand there and watch their memories, momentoes, clothes, food, appliances, shelter burn to the ground because of 75 bucks? Pathetic philosophy and mammon worshipping if the mere USD ..75 frikkin' units of them..is placed above the valuables and shelter, food and clothing of a fellow citizen. But hey, yer a magnanimous fellow. When you see them on the town street you will toss a quarter in their empty foam coffee cup.

This house had property taxes. What do they get in return??

Rev9

 

[Danke]

I don't think it's immoral for a fire department to watch a person's house burn down when they refused to pay for their service. I would believe it to be immoral if there were people trapped in there, but otherwise, I don't see why a fire department should be compelled morally or legally to protect a person's property when that person never paid to have it protected, and that appears to be what happened in this case. If the person didn't want to pay a small fee annually to get it protected from fires, then what right do they have to expect somebody else, even if morally, to protect it for them? Attitudes like that led to local governments abolishing fire departments and running them themselves.

Ya, cause we all know it is only $75 that the govenment ask for fire protection.

Give me a refund on all the other taxes I pay as a property owner. Then I'll voluntary pay for the state's fire protection.

 

[pcosmar]

Ya, cause we all know it is only $75 that the govenment ask for fire protection.

Give me a refund on all the other taxes I pay as a property owner. Then I'll voluntary pay for the state's fire protection.

I'll go a step further. If I am going to pay for Fire protection,, they pay ALL damage to my home as the result of fire.

Here is a clue for you folks,, Fire Departments DO Not prevent fire or protect from fire.
Hell most of the time even when they put one out it is a TOTAL LOSS.

So what are you paying for?

I have Home Owners insurance.
And yes,, I have been and always am a volunteer Fire Fighter.
Anywhere, anytime.

 

[Moo2400]

This house paid property tax. For that they get?????

What makes you think their property taxes go into paying for the fire department in question? It clearly does not, otherwise they'd be entitled to its service. Because they have no fire service in their county, their property tax is very likely quite a bit less than the property tax where there is fire service. So yes, they are keeping a good portion of their tax money that they could use for that $75 a year.

I don't understand this. Why do you believe they should be entitled to a service they did not pay for? Do you believe we should provide healthcare at no cost to individuals who hurt themselves badly too? If you're going to take the position that they were entitled to fire service at no cost to them, where is it going to stop and why?

 

[libertarian4321]

This has happened multiple times in my town of 20,000. The thing is if you let people off the hook then EVERYONE starting slacking on payments.

Yup.

Let one guy "get over" and pretty soon no one will be willing to pay the $75 fee. Why would they? If I paid the fee, and everyone around me was getting the service without paying, I'd feel like an idiot for paying- so I'd stop paying too.

These people were stupid, and brought this upon themselves.

 

[libertarian4321]

The firefighters job isn't to pay for their home, that's fire insurance and if they didn't have insurance that IS their problem. The firefighters job is keep people safe, and they failed to do their job. They failed to uphold their oath. Period.

You are wrong.

Their job was to protect the people of the CITY. They are not paid by, and not obligated to, people in the countryside outside the city.

As a courteousy, they contracted with any people living outside the city who were willing to pay the $75 yearly insurance fee.

They made it clear that ONLY those who paid for the service would get service.

They owed NOTHING to the people who's house burned down, because they were outside the city and did not pay the insurance by CHOICE (they admitted they knew about it and just didn't feel like paying).

They made a bad CHOICE. They are suffering the consequences of their poor CHOICE.

It ain't the fire department's fault that these people are idiots.