Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Crystallas]

I see two problems here. One is the complaisant residents who ignore their problem. Two is the local government controlling the market. I do not believe competition exists, otherwise the costs would be even lower!

 

[SkarnkaiLW]

Only the Government could make a scheme like this where Firefighters show up, and then don't put out a fire. They should have the flexibility to charge the homeowner significantly more (say 1500-2000, depends on how much they need to be honest) to stop the fire if not covered.

 

[jkr]

hope these punks get to watch their house burn down

fucking animals

 

[brushfire]

Hmmm government greed. Where are all the servants? I had thought that the market was evil and greedy?

 

[Krugerrand]

Frankly, I'm surprised the insurance companies don't pay the fee to limit their expenses and then simply pass the charge onto the homeowner via the premiums.

 

[jtstellar]

stupid government versus unworthy citizen.. nothing to watch here

 

[Verrater]

Apply this same logic to car insurance. I know they didn't pay for car insurance but the insurance company should just pay for the damages anyway, anything else is immoral.

Some people choose to learn using the brick wall method. Don't be so cheap. It's only $75 for insurance on your $100,000 + home. It's ridiculous to not pay it and then expect someone else to risk their life over something you're not even willing to pay $75 for.

Wow, seriously? That is the most asinine thing I've read in this whole thread.
What if there were people in the home? Is it moral for them to let them burn alive because they didn't pay $75? According to you it's absolutely fine.

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.

I promise concern for others. A willingness to help all those in need.

I promise courage - courage to face and conquer my fears. Courage to share and endure the ordeal of those who need me.

I promise strength - strength of heart to bear whatever burdens might be placed upon me. Strength of body to deliver to safety all those placed within my care.

I promise the wisdom to lead, the compassion to comfort, and the love to serve unselfishly whenever I am called.

According to your logic, the mass media was right when they said Dr.Paul wants to let poor people to die if they don't have health insurance. But that is categorically false, because doctors won't turn away patients based on health insurance and shouldn't because it violates their Hippocratic oath and basic morality. Whether it is legal or not is NOT the issue, the issue is that it IS immoral and the firefighters acted immorally.

 

[eduardo89]

Frankly, I'm surprised the insurance companies don't pay the fee to limit their expenses and then simply pass the charge onto the homeowner via the premiums.

Do you think these people who wouldn't even pay $75 a year to get fire department protection are paying for home insurance???

Also, who would insure them knowing they don't even have fire department coverage!?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think what people are missing in all this is, the fire department is a Government agency. This has nothing to do with the market. There is no choice, no competition. The Government has a monopoly on this service and is it no wonder that an agency funded by taxpayers does not really care to fight fires for payment in services rendered? (See: the guy prior who said he would pay in full)

Fire departments are on of the easy areas which can easily be supplied by the right of contract.

 

[eduardo89]

I think what people are missing in all this is, the fire department is a Government agency. This has nothing to do with the market. There is no choice, no competition. The Government has a monopoly on this service and is it no wonder that an agency funded by taxpayers does not really care to fight fires for payment in services rendered? (See: the guy prior who said he would pay in full)

Fire departments are on of the easy areas which can easily be supplied by the right of contract.

Is there anything stopping a volunteer fighterter unit from forming or a private company offering its services for cheaper?

 

[roho76]

Wow, seriously? That is the most asinine thing I've read in this whole thread.
What if there were people in the home? Is it moral for them to let them burn alive because they didn't pay $75? According to you it's absolutely fine.

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.




According to your logic, the mass media was right when they said Dr.Paul wants to let poor people to die if they don't have health insurance. But that is categorically false, because doctors won't turn away patients based on health insurance and shouldn't because it violates their Hippocratic oath and basic morality. Whether it is legal or not is NOT the issue, the issue is that it IS immoral and the firefighters acted immorally.

You're just proving my point. $75 is not a lot of money and this is a business. 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. If the people who are burning alive in you home are so important to you that your not willing to pay $75 to protect them then why don't you run into the burning home and save them yourself? Why do you expect others to do it for free because youre too cheap.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wow, seriously? That is the most asinine thing I've read in this whole thread.
What if there were people in the home? Is it moral for them to let them burn alive because they didn't pay $75? According to you it's absolutely fine.

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.




According to your logic, the mass media was right when they said Dr.Paul wants to let poor people to die if they don't have health insurance. But that is categorically false, because doctors won't turn away patients based on health insurance and shouldn't because it violates their Hippocratic oath and basic morality. Whether it is legal or not is NOT the issue, the issue is that it IS immoral and the firefighters acted immorally.

Firefighters have no compulsion to risk their lives for non-payment in services rendered. Why is it immoral to not risk your life because somebody refuses to pay you in doing so? If a person wants to go in and assist even when payment is not rendered, then they should be commended, but it shouldn't be a societal compulsion for people to risk their lives for no remuneration. That is greed on the part of the non-paying party to expect another human being to risk their life for you in return for nothing.

A doctor and the Hippocratic Oath is completely different than a firefighter. It is night and day, apples & oranges, etc. difference. Such a non-sequitor.

PS: The firefighters job is to put out the fire, and in cases where the fire is too intense to fight the secondary obligation (with remuneration mind you) is to save the life of the individuals trapped. No individuals in the home, the goal is to save property by putting out the fire. With persons inside, the goal is to still put out the fire, however, the consideration is to also save the life of the individual. Being that I was in the Coast Guard it is pretty much similar in that the goal with no one on board was to save the property if possible, but if someone was on board to save the life and the property if possible, but in either case there was no compulsion to risk your life in doing so. There is a reason it is called going beyond and above the call of service in performing those feats.

Ergo, I reject your morality. It also doesn't follow that any of us wants anyone to die. That is such a strawman. Would you say I want people to starve because I do not want the State to monopolize agriculture?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Is there anything stopping a volunteer fighterter unit from forming or a private company offering its services for cheaper?

Yes, the same in the energy sector. Good luck trying to open up your own utility company.

 

[Acala]

I'm pretty amazed at how many people here fail to understand how insurance works.

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.

 

[eduardo89]

Yes, the same in the energy sector. Good luck trying to open up your own utility company.

What is stopping them? Apart from it probably not being a bet profitable business in a rural area.

 

[Danke]

I bet they still paid a lot in property taxes.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What is stopping them? Apart from it probably not being a bet profitable business in a rural area.

The Government. Can't believe you are asking this question. This is why I just laugh and scoff whenever someone says that the US is a free-market economy. My god they are so oblivious it is beyond epic proportions. You have to nearly have a permit nowadays just to ride your damn bike somewhere.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I bet they still paid a lot in property taxes.

Property taxes normally go to that institution which people say that we would recess into neanderthals without which is the State monopolization of education and schooling, which is nothing but the production line for bureaucracy and obedience of the population.

 

[Elwar]

This is the fire department I used to have:
http://www.mvfd.net/

For $20 per month you get:
"Martinez–Columbia Fire Rescue has achieved a Class 4 Insurance Rating through a national rating firm. This benefits the citizens of the fire district with a seventy-five percent or better discount in their homeowner's insurance premium. This is well above the average in the state of Georgia."

Or $2,000 if your house is on fire.

 

[Carole]

Now what would actually be the proper and humane resolution to such a problem?

I suggest a "pay-as-you-go" plan for those who refuse to pay the fire fee. Therefore, if I as a homeowner choose not to pay the fire fee, then when my home catches fire, the fire department should respond and put out the fire. I, in turn, should be billed the entire cost of the fire department's expenses for their having saved my home. This would be the natural consequence of my own behavior.

The city would actually make out even better financially with this arrangement. And I would likely choose then to pay the fire fee rather than incur the entire cost of a future fire again.

Where am I wrong?