Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Perry]

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.

Then on the other hand if I didn't pay my insurance and you sat there in your firetruck and watched my house burn I might force you to put it out at gunpoint. lol

 

[libertarian4321]

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?

Some places do allow the "pay as you go" option, others don't.

Those that don't have this option probably figure that anyone who won't pony up $75 in the first place isn't a very good bet to come through on a heat of the moment "promise" to pay $2,000 later. Since these rural houses are outside the city, the city would have no way of getting the money. Essentially, the city would be floating an unsecured loan of $2,000 to people to cheap or too poor to afford a $75 insurance fee. That's pretty risky.

The obvious solution is PAY THE DAMNED INSURANCE FEE OR DON'T BITCH AND MOAN WHEN YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN!

 

[libertarian4321]

Then on the other hand if I didn't pay my insurance and you sat there in your firetruck and watched my house burn I might force you to put it out at gunpoint. lol

Your gun would probably be in the house burning along with everything else

 

[libertarian4321]

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

Rev9

The CITY has a fire department. City residents pay taxes to fund the fire department, and get free fire protection.

These clowns lived outside the city. They did NOT pay taxes to fund the fire department. They had a choice of either paying the $75 insurance fee and getting protection, or not having protection.

They chose not to pay for protection, so they got no protection.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I'll bet they come up with the $75 next year, though...

 

[asurfaholic]

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.

But you miss the entire point. These people if they were homeowners already have insurance. H.o. ins is required, but if they are renting, renters insurance is optional.

The fire department fee is NOT insurance, its a gate fee that determines if they will provide the service.

Problem is, if you choose not to pay the extra, then there are no other options for people to turn to.

I don't know what the deal is there, but in most of the counties I've lived in, the fire/ems services are paid for through property taxes. A fire dept survives by the taxes, grants, and charity of the community they serve. Most small towns I live in have volunteer depts, and as a former volunteer fire fighter, I can testify that the communties care for their volunteers, because the volunteers will run to any fire and put it out, regardless of whether the people pay "taxes"

 

[truelies]

The couple were Fools to not pay the $75 fee. They took a chance & got burned.

 

[juleswin]

What about neighbor's? I wouldn't want the house next to me to burn to the ground because my neighbor didn't pay the fee. What about property values because of such?

If the fire department arrives at the scene and blatantly waits for the house to burn down, I consider that to be immoral.

Do you know what I really consider immoral? The fact that you live in a house, with electricity, food, running water, probably have a computer w/internet and have some disposable income while children around the world are dying of hunger. Why dont you sell everything that are not necessities and send them the money to charity to help these dying children? But lemme guess you wont be doing it anytime soon, but you want a fire dept to put out a fire for a resident who presumeably can pay for $75 even if he waited till the end of the year after a fire to pay his measly $75 due.

This is the reason why I am starting to question any kind of govt or voting system because I wouldn't want anyone and that including most people commenting on this post to have any say whatsoever in my life or the life of my loved ones.

 

[pcosmar]

The obvious solution is PAY THE DAMNED INSURANCE FEE OR DON'T BITCH AND MOAN WHEN YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN!

IT IS NOT an INSURANCE FEE.
It is not insurance. They insure NOTHING.

 

[RyanRSheets]

There are what, 10 fires a year?

Please show me a fire department that can run on $750 a year.

You could charge them for the actual cost plus premium after the fact, but then your into court battles to recover the claim etc.

$75 is extremely underpriced. There are a hell of a lot more than 10 fires a year. I'd wager that you could get businesses to insure and pay a premium.

 

[Inny Binny]

The idea that anyone could support what is perhaps the most immoral, disgusting business model one could possibly dream up is horrific and monumentally disheartening coming from defenders of liberty. Not every service has to be compartmentalised into lean and mean PAY OR DIIIIEEE bureaucracies. What if a majority of firefighters are volunteers who care more about people's safety than their own pockets? What if most house fires could be paid through local charity drives, because people actually have a heart and want to help people in their own neighbourhood? What if basic services could be largely paid through voluntary donation, mutual aid and flexible insurance policy, without people dying on the streets because they forgot to pay the police to protect them?

But apparently all the free market means to some people is forcing fees on everyone for everything - and hey, whenever someone hasn't paid their dues, let's all stand around, crack open a beer and roast a few marshmallows over the fire of a family's life!

 

[UtahApocalypse]

I cannot believe a single Ron Paul supporter would be against this. I am amazed how many people just want the CITY to dole out its fire department to the county residents that do not pay anything to the city.

 

[Acala]

But you miss the entire point. These people if they were homeowners already have insurance. H.o. ins is required, but if they are renting, renters insurance is optional.

The fire department fee is NOT insurance, its a gate fee that determines if they will provide the service.

Problem is, if you choose not to pay the extra, then there are no other options for people to turn to.

I don't know what the deal is there, but in most of the counties I've lived in, the fire/ems services are paid for through property taxes. A fire dept survives by the taxes, grants, and charity of the community they serve. Most small towns I live in have volunteer depts, and as a former volunteer fire fighter, I can testify that the communties care for their volunteers, because the volunteers will run to any fire and put it out, regardless of whether the people pay "taxes"

It IS a form of insurance. It is called risk pooling. Each individual has a very small chance of having a fire but the cost is great for having a crew on hand to put it out effectively if it does happen. It makes economic sense for everyone to pool their risk, pay a small amount, and in return get the "insurance" of having a crew on hand to put out a fire in the unlikely event that one starts. This IS the insurance business model. But if everyone gets the payoff (having their fire extinguished) regardless of whether or not they paid the premium, only an idiot pays the premium and the risk pool folds up.

You may say that they can just charge the full price at the time of the fire, but that is more than a little problematical. Agreements are breached all the time. How are you going to enforce it? The idea of negotiating some complicated, secured transaction in front of the burning house is silly.

And, as a subscriber to the fire service, I would not want my fire company extinguishing other people's fires for free - or even for full payment. The reason is that the more people that pool their risk, the less it costs each person. So it costs me more money to pay in advance when others think they can just skate by. I want others to be motivated to join the risk pool to keep my costs down. I want my fire company to show up to the burning house, film the thing, and put it in their advertisements. "Here is what happens to people who gamble with fire. They lose."

Of course, as usual, the answer is to get government out of it entirely and let the market handle it. But I can assure you that no for-profit fire supression business will be in business long if it puts out fires for free.

 

[pcosmar]

I cannot believe a single Ron Paul supporter would be against this. I am amazed how many people just want the CITY to dole out its fire department to the county residents that do not pay anything to the city.

Against what?
I am against letting someones house burn down without lifting a finger to help.
Regardless of their ability to pay or arbitrary line on some map.

I am also against Fire Fighting being called Insurance. It is not insurance.

Helping your fellow man is a DUTY. Regardless of payment or hope of payment
I can not see how any human being does not get this.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Against what?
I am against letting someones house burn down without lifting a finger to help.
Regardless of their ability to pay or arbitrary line on some map.

I am also against Fire Fighting being called Insurance. It is not insurance.

Helping your fellow man is a DUTY. Regardless of payment or hope of payment
I can not see how any human being does not get this.

Then I am sure you also support food stamps, free medical, and other welfare as well.

I am shocked and surprised that you of all people on this forum are for this.

 

[Melissa]

Here is how I see this issue.. Both sides are right..In a free market if they did not pay then there house should burn, but, and here is the rub in a free market the home owners would have had another place to call to see if they were willing to put out the fire for a fee. Since the government has a monopoly on fire departments I don't think that you can just say if they don't pay there house should burn to the ground. Don't you think in a free market there would be a company that filled this void and would be glad to put out fires for a large fee if the home owner had not paid the fee. Think of it like car insurance. Maybe I did not have any and I wrecked my car but there are many many companies out there ready to fix my car but I just pay a lot more by not having the car already insured. So in this case I dont think they should have let the house burn to the ground.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Here is how I see this issue.. Both sides are right..In a free market if they did not pay then there house should burn, but, and here is the rub in a free market the home owners would have had another place to call to see if they were willing to put out the fire for a fee. Since the government has a monopoly on fire departments I don't think that you can just say if they don't pay there house should burn to the ground. Don't you think in a free market there would be a company that filled this void and would be glad to put out fires for a large fee if the home owner had not paid the fee. Think of it like car insurance. Maybe I did not have any and I wrecked my car but there are many many companies out there ready to fix my car but I just pay a lot more by not having the car already insured. So in this case I dont think they should have let the house burn to the ground.

+1 I think it would have been reasonable to just put out the fire and send a bill to the homeowner afterward. Similar to emergency care clinics. It would be much higher than it would have been if they'd paid the fee, but still a better deal than a total loss.

 

[Revolution9]

Then I am sure you also support food stamps, free medical, and other welfare as well.

I am shocked and surprised that you of all people on this forum are for this.

WTF are property taxes for? So I don't want to pay the police tax. Do I now not get arrested and be subject to their "services"? Just exactly what do property taxes pay for if not county services?

OTOH, morally I stand with Pete. I never pass by a human that is truly in need of help. If someone's house is on fire I am there to do what I can if I am available. I call it paying it forward and an investment in my humanity. I am not a label strewn automaton who focuses solely on the profit margin. Money is a tool and not a ghawd.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Then I am sure you also support food stamps, free medical, and other welfare as well.

I am shocked and surprised that you of all people on this forum are for this.

Charity is not gonna work real well with the headspaces of many on this thread. They wouldn't lift a finger because of their political philosophy. OTOH I come to this from a golden rule perspective. Call me old fashioned and naive but I do not wish to take part in the selfish, money addled mindset going on with this particular bent of pragmatic and sociopathic libertarian philosophy. Yes. Folks are responsible for themselves. Perhaps the coupling made from cheap imported metal blew out and the house fire was the fault of the manufacturer of said heating device. Then it becomes an issue of 3rd party responsibility and the people whose possessions went up in flames are not responsible. These are the same bunch of characters who decry statism but yet think it is fine for this type of extortion to occur. This is not free market fire fighting. This is monopoly by state extortion.

Rev9

 

[gls]

This is a city run fire department. These people did not live in the city. They did not contribute 1 red cent in taxes to the city fire department. The city has no authority to tax people outside the city. The only other thing the city could do is have a new policy where if you are not in the city limits, you are not eligible for fire protection at all, with no option to pay a fee.

 

[juleswin]

The idea that anyone could support what is perhaps the most immoral, disgusting business model one could possibly dream up is horrific and monumentally disheartening coming from defenders of liberty.
But apparently all the free market means to some people is forcing fees on everyone for everything - and hey, whenever someone hasn't paid their dues, let's all stand around, crack open a beer and roast a few marshmallows over the fire of a family's life!

Just think of what you are saying and more importantly think of it in terms of the wall street bailout. Your problem is that people will see their homes burnt to the ground just because they did not pay, right? and it is immoral and disgusting for liberty lovers to support this. OK, i will assume you opposed the wall street bail out right? and rightfully so. Now do u know how many elderly, middle class and childern that would have been totally wiped out if we did not bail em out? Most of those people would have ended up being homeless, depressed and hungry but that was still the right thing to do.

Remember, nothing is stopping you from starting a volunteer fire dept, theres nothing stopping you from starting a charity that goes around paying a $75 fire fee to people who own $100k house. There are no restrictions from this over bearing govt from stoppping ypu from doing that. So in the spirit of goodwill and friendship to all, start one yourself and stop waiting for the magical free market to do it. You are the free market you are waiting for