Support NeoGAF

[AndyD]

This seems like a pretty gross policy if you ask me. And the way the article reads, one of the deciding factors to not put out the fire was to put the fear of god into other peoples hearts - which is absolute bullshit. People are idiots, people can be absolute idiots, but it doesn't mean that you should ignore them in what was probably their greatest time of need - and use them as some sort of lesson.

I agree with everyone else here, if the system is too broken to integrate completely into the government social system, then charge them $75 for yearly coverage, or $1,000 for putting out their fire without coverage.

They said its happened to a few others in the 20 years this policy has been around and the current homeowner said he knew of other instances, and yet he still chose not to pay.

I think people are allowed to be idiots, but they also need to be responsible for their idiocy when they know better and choose the stupid path. Don't want to pay taxes and you move to the boonies? Fine. You don't want to pay the optional firefighter insurance? Fine. But don't complain when your house burns down.

 

[AndyD]

Why would they pay a lot after the fire department saves his house?

Because it costs a lot more than $75 for the firefighters to drive over there and do dangerous work putting out the fire. The whole point is everyone pays in the $75 and then the money is pooled together, its insurance. Its why ambulance rides cost $500-1000 but insurance covers it and is comparably cheaper.

 

[water_wendi]

Because it costs a lot more than $75 for the firefighters to drive over there and do dangerous work putting out the fire. The whole point is everyone pays in the $75 and then the money is pooled together, its insurance. Its why ambulance rides cost $500-1000 but insurance covers it and is comparably cheaper.

i understand but why would they pay if they could choose just to not pay whatever bill they get? What recourse would the city they dont live in have if the hypothetical $1000 bill isnt paid?

 

[turnbuckle]

all these hypotheticals... imagine if they actually did respond and go to put the fire out, and then there was a fire in the city and a child died. imagine if the scenario was a situation where even if they were at the fire house, they in all likelihood wouldn't have been able to respond in time to save the child. the shit would still hit the fan.

Imagine if there was a fire at someone's house who had insurance, and then there was a fire at someone else's house that also had insurance.

If there's only a single fire truck and there were multiple fires I'd have less of a problem with the department ignoring uninsured guy's house.

 

[skrew]

They said its happened to a few others in the 20 years this policy has been around and the current homeowner said he knew of other instances, and yet he still chose not to pay.

I think people are allowed to be idiots, but they also need to be responsible for their idiocy when they know better and choose the stupid path. Don't want to pay taxes and you move to the boonies? Fine. You don't want to pay the optional firefighter insurance? Fine. But don't complain when your house burns down.

Yes and a couple of thousand dollar bill would teach him the lesson. What is irresponsible is to let that fire burn until it catches a paying members property on fire before putting it out.

If I was paying the fire dept. fee and the fire dept. didn't respond to my neighbors fire and waited till my property caught on fire, there would be a civil suit against the fire dept. for negligence.

 

[skrew]

i understand but why would they pay if they could choose just to not pay whatever bill they get? What recourse would the city they dont live in have if the hypothetical $1000 bill isnt paid?

Same recourse your doctor has when you get services with no insurance and don't pay the bill. Or when you go to a restaurant, eat a steak and refuse to pay. Or any other hundred of thousands of business in America that bill you after services have been rendered.

Unless you have found a loophole in federal / state law that allows you to not pay a bill if its originated from a different city, then I might be a dumbass for paying all these out of state businesses money that I owe them.

 

[water_wendi]

Yes and a couple of thousand dollar bill would teach him the lesson. What is irresponsible is to let that fire burn until it catches a paying members property on fire before putting it out.

Again, why would they have to pay the bill?

If I was paying the fire dept. fee and the fire dept. didn't respond to my neighbors fire and waited till my property caught on fire, there would be a civil suit against the fire dept. for negligence.

On what grounds would they be negligent? Their contract with you would be putting out fires on your property, not preventing fires from reaching your property. Do lawsuits for water damage win against fire departments often?

edit:

Same recourse your doctor has when you get services with no insurance and don't pay the bill. Or when you go to a restaurant, eat a steak and refuse to pay. Or any other hundred of thousands of business in America that bill you after services have been rendered.

Unless you have found a loophole in federal / state law that allows you to not pay a bill if its originated from a different city, then I might be a dumbass for paying all these out of state businesses money that I owe them.

So the bill would go to a collection agency?

 

[AndyD]

i understand but why would they pay if they could choose just to not pay whatever bill they get? What recourse would the city they dont live in have if the hypothetical $1000 bill isnt paid?

Oh, i agree on that part. I thought you meant he should only have to pay the $75 still.

Yes and a couple of thousand dollar bill would teach him the lesson. What is irresponsible is to let that fire burn until it catches a paying members property on fire before putting it out.

If I was paying the fire dept. fee and the fire dept. didn't respond to my neighbors fire and waited till my property caught on fire, there would be a civil suit against the fire dept. for negligence.

Nothing is there to compel him to pay, I agree. Someone who just lost their house is unlikely to have any money to pay that fee. People go bankrupt after medical emergencies and hospitals get nothing, just like people would go bankrupt after fires and the fire department would get nothing.

As to the civil suit, I agree, but they came out and put it out for the paying neighbor. But what if you lived on the east side of town and paid your $75 and they were responding to an non paying customer on the west side of town and your house burned because they were too far and busy to get there quickly, wouldn't you be even more angry?

 

[Chozo]

Yes and a couple of thousand dollar bill would teach him the lesson. What is irresponsible is to let that fire burn until it catches a paying members property on fire before putting it out.

If I was paying the fire dept. fee and the fire dept. didn't respond to my neighbors fire and waited till my property caught on fire, there would be a civil suit against the fire dept. for negligence.

Yes, but going by your posts you live in an area where the houses are relatively close together (meaning a house fire can quickly become multiple house fires), while in this case the houses are on farmland and relatively far apart. I don't think this neighbor is too terribly torn up about some scorched farmland, at least not to the point that it's worth a lawsuit over.

It comes down to jurisdiction too, as a lot of people have noted: the $75 policy arose in the first place because they can't force him to pay for the coverage, and if he can't be arsed to pay $75 he'll probably put up a hell of a fight to pay the thousands of dollars it would require to make rural firefighting viable. The powers that be/voters probably decided that it wasn't worth the risk of legal fights to get paid for services rendered.

 

[skrew]

Oh, i agree on that part. I thought you meant he should only have to pay the $75 still.



Nothing is there to compel him to pay, I agree. Someone who just lost their house is unlikely to have any money to pay that fee. People go bankrupt after medical emergencies and hospitals get nothing, just like people would go bankrupt after fires and the fire department would get nothing.

As to the civil suit, I agree, but they came out and put it out for the paying neighbor. But what if you lived on the east side of town and paid your $75 and they were responding to an non paying customer on the west side of town and your house burned because they were too far and busy to get there quickly, wouldn't you be even more angry?

So now we are going down the hypothetical road of bullshit? What if his son was the second coming of Jesus Christ, and was stuck inside the house and died. And now the entire human race wouldn't get a chance for salvation and god forsakens us all and the devil comes down to earth and light everyone house on fire? What if?

 

[-COOLIO-]

I don't want no socialist fire department anyway

:lol

i like it

i understand the issue but i couldnt bring myself to not do anything, id just spray the house and get my ass fired.

 

[VelvetMouth]

I remember you now, you are the douchebag that was defending the HOA when they foreclosed an active duty service members house for a $800 fee in violation of Service Members Civil Relief Act and sold it for 1% it value after the HOA lawyers lied to the court and filed affidavits stating that he wasn't an active duty soldier.

I never defended what this HOA did or anybody lying, I do however defend HOA's because people choose to live in one, sign a document when they buy into one and then are expected to pay their dues like every single other person in the HOA. If we also go back to that story it was also an extremely fishy situation where the wife just decided she would stop paying bills and not open her mail consequences be damned.

You seem like the type of person who thinks rules only apply to some people and everybody else should bend over and take it for the people who contribute nothing but then when they need help, everybody else should just buck up.

 

[The Faceless Master]

So now we are going down the hypothetical road of bullshit? What if his son was the second coming of Jesus Christ, and was stuck inside the house and died. And now the entire human race wouldn't get a chance for salvation and god forsakens us all and the devil comes down to earth and light everyone house on fire? What if?

the hypothetical bullshit started with people who said "they should save the house then bill $xxxx later" while ignoring the fact that the dude, despite knowing of prior incidents decided not topay $75 because he's special and they wouldn't dare not help him, despite his not pitching in.

 

[captmorgan]

Yes and a couple of thousand dollar bill would teach him the lesson. What is irresponsible is to let that fire burn until it catches a paying members property on fire before putting it out.

If I was paying the fire dept. fee and the fire dept. didn't respond to my neighbors fire and waited till my property caught on fire, there would be a civil suit against the fire dept. for negligence.

Why wouldn`t you sue the person who started the fucking fire in the first place?

Honestly if I ran that fire department I would say fuck it, stop collecting the 75 dollars from those towns people and not respond to any fires. Let them set up there own department and sort it out themselves.

 

[skrew]

Again, why would they have to pay the bill?


On what grounds would they be negligent? Their contract with you would be putting out fires on your property, not preventing fires from reaching your property. Do lawsuits for water damage win against fire departments often?

edit:

So the bill would go to a collection agency?

You might be on to something there, I think we have just figured out how to fix deadbeat debtors, let just burn their shit down cause they might not pay!

A lawsuit again the fire dept for water damage would imply the fire dept was ... wait for it ... putting out fires. A lawsuit against the fire dept. for not responding to a fire and letting a paying customers property catch on fire would imply the fire dept wasn't putting out fires. No difference at all.

No the bill would go to the local mob who would go break his legs instead.

I never defended what this HOA did or anybody lying, I do however defend HOA's because people choose to live in one, sign a document when they buy into one and then are expected to pay their dues like every single other person in the HOA. If we also go back to that story it was also an extremely fishy situation where the wife just decided she would stop paying bills and not open her mail consequences be damned.

You seem like the type of person who thinks rules only apply to some people and everybody else should bend over and take it for the people who contribute nothing to but then when they need help, everybody else should just buck up.

Yes that damn fishy wife, someone should chase her down with a jeep to teach her a lesson.

You seem like the type of person who thinks a HOA agreement over rules a federal law signed by the president. United States of HOAs?

So to recap, volunteer firefighters are hobbyists that get some sick pleasure from watching things burn, active duty solders in a combat zone contribute nothing, you paying your $100 HOA fee deserve a medal of honor and ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your HOA.

 

[water_wendi]

You might be on to something there, I think we have just figured out how to fix deadbeat debtors, let just burn their shit down cause they might not pay!

A lawsuit again the fire dept for water damage would imply the fire dept was ... wait for it ... putting out fires. A lawsuit against the fire dept. for not responding to a fire and letting a paying customers property catch on fire would imply the fire dept wasn't putting out fires. No difference at all.

No the bill would go to the local mob who would go break his legs instead.
Yes that damn fishy wife, someone should chase her down with a jeep to teach her a lesson.

My point was that the worst (and most likely) thing to happen is that the Cranicks house is saved.. they refuse to pay the hypothetical bill.. the bill goes to collections.. and the Cranicks credit rating is dinged. Wow that will teach them!

 

[skrew]

My point was that the worst (and most likely) thing to happen is that the Cranicks house is saved.. they refuse to pay the hypothetical bill.. the bill goes to collections.. and the Cranicks credit rating is dinged. Wow that will teach them!

So you have a more cruel and unusual way to make people pay their bills? Cause I think all the creditors in this country will be all ears.

By your logic, everyone that doesn't have health insurance should be refused treatment , because if they don't pay for insurance, they sure as hell wont pay for the treatment cause the worst thing that will happen is a credit rating ding. But if we let them suffer and die, that will teach em a lesson.

 

[Chozo]

lots of hyperbole

Or maybe the solution to all of this is...don't choose to live in an unincorporated area with no county fire department?

You're right though, a system that is no doubt heavily the product of rural voters saying "no government taking money from MY pocket" and where a city fire department chooses to go above and beyond by offering fire fighting services to rural residents it is not otherwise obligated to cover is clearly logically equivalent to mob extortion.

 

[skrew]

Or maybe the solution to all of this is...don't choose to live in an unincorporated area with no county fire department?

You're right though, a system that is no doubt heavily the product of rural voters saying "no government taking money from MY pocket" and where a city fire department chooses to go above and beyond by offering fire fighting services to rural residents it is not otherwise obligated to cover is clearly logically equivalent to mob extortion.

So tell me what is wrong with putting the fire out and charging them a fee that more then makes up for it? Cause they might not pay? They can put a lien on the property. Or because it wont teach them a lesson?

When the house caught on fire, the fire dept atleast had a responsibility to its paying customers to put the fire out before it reached them. Put the fire out and charging them a bill would both pay for the service and meet the responsibility to it customers. And it would teach the non paying home owner a lesson.

Instead, they didn't make any more money. Had to go out there anyway and let a paying customers property catch on fire.

 

[sangreal]

So tell me what is wrong with putting the fire out and charging them a fee that more then makes up for it? Cause they might not pay? They can put a lien on the property. Or because it wont teach them a lesson.

Because the system can only exist if everyone pays in advance, even if their shit isn't on fire.

 

[skrew]

Because the system can only exist if everyone pays in advance, even if their shit isn't on fire.

But everyone doesn't pay in advance, and the system still exists.

 

[AndyD]

So tell me what is wrong with putting the fire out and charging them a fee that more then makes up for it? Cause they might not pay? They can put a lien on the property. Or because it wont teach them a lesson?

When the house caught on fire, the fire dept atleast had a responsibility to its paying customers to put the fire out before it reached them. Put the fire out and charging them a bill would both pay for the service and meet the responsibility to it customers. And it would teach the non paying home owner a lesson.

Instead, they didn't make any more money. Had to go out there anyway and let a paying customers property catch on fire.

Those things can be done, but they need to be written into laws by the local county or state first.

I dont think people are saying what happened there makes the most sense, only that it makes the most sense under their current laws.

But everyone doesn't pay in advance, and the system still exists.

They do. The budget for firefighting personnel and equipment is based on how may people pay in advance since they know how many to cover that year.

 

[sangreal]

But everyone doesn't pay in advance, and the system still exists.

Everyone covered by the fire department pays in advance, either through the fee or through taxes. If you let people not pay in advance and still get covered the system breaks down. The chances of your house burning down are incredibly slim, people wouldn't pay (like this guy).

 

[Juice]

I don't want no socialist fire department anyway

This took six replies? GAF, the tea party has you losing your edge.

 

[Korey]

holy crap, this thread is still going? :lol

 

[VelvetMouth]

Wow you really seem to be having a tough time of it right now. Maybe you should take some out from real life and stop paying your bills or just not pay anything at all and see how it works out for you.

I do hope you're this accomodating when your employer decides to not pay for you 6 months just because nobody likes you around the office or your landlord throws your shit out onto the street because he's having girlfriend issues.

Contracts and personal responsibility?

reggienotmyproblem.jpg.

You might be on to something there, I think we have just figured out how to fix deadbeat debtors, let just burn their shit down cause they might not pay!

A lawsuit again the fire dept for water damage would imply the fire dept was ... wait for it ... putting out fires. A lawsuit against the fire dept. for not responding to a fire and letting a paying customers property catch on fire would imply the fire dept wasn't putting out fires. No difference at all.

No the bill would go to the local mob who would go break his legs instead.
Yes that damn fishy wife, someone should chase her down with a jeep to teach her a lesson.

You seem like the type of person who thinks a HOA agreement over rules a federal law signed by the president. United States of HOAs?

So to recap, volunteer firefighters are hobbyists that get some sick pleasure from watching things burn, active duty solders in a combat zone contribute nothing, you paying your $100 HOA fee deserve a medal of honor and ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your HOA.

 

[Alfarif]

nobody is reading the thread

/pulls hair out

Yeah, kind of infuriating how everyone thinks these people are paying the taxes to pay these firefighters, or that billing them later would even work. Oh, wait, they decided not to pay, so you can either just write it off (leaving the actual tax payers with the drain on gas and time and manpower spent fighting a fire for someone who doesn't pay) or they can go to court and rack up tons of legal fees trying to get that money (another drain on taxpayers).

 

[Bleepey]

I was reading this thread on RonPaulforums, some of them were arguing for privatized fire departments. Talk about fucking missing the point.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263105

SMH

 

[ccbfan]

Its this simple. If they allowed a pay later option then there will be no fire department or service for that area. Unless that amount is something insane like 100K.

A fire is pretty rare. I've never known anyone that's ever had to call the fire department. That 20+ years of a 100+ houses.

If these people were given the choice, almost none would pay for yearly fire department duties unless they were required or they could lose the house if they don't (in this case burn down). Each would pay the 3000-5000 option every time.

 

[titiklabingapat]

usually, i would say damn the homeowner, but 3 dogs and a cat got killed because of the negligence.

 

[Escape Goat]

 

[Shanadeus]

usually, i would say damn the homeowner, but 3 dogs and a cat got killed because of the negligence.

Wait wat now?
Animals died in that fire?

 

[Chavelo]

Wait wat now?
Animals died in that fire?

OH SHIT
Now pro-burning GAF will repent and come out in full force against the fire department...

GAF, A FUCKING CAT DIED IN THAT FIRE.

>:-(

 

[JGS]

I just read this article on Consumerist.

I think it's stupid that a fire deptarment wouldn't respond to begin with (The insurance company would pay those costs assuming the person had it). I get that they could have stayed in the station. However, once there I can't fathom why they would just sit there and not accept payment or bill for the cost of labor.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I went out of town for a trip, came back and this thread is still going?

 

[water_wendi]

I went out of town for a trip, came back and this thread is still going?

http://www.sarasotamasters.com/images/Energizer%20Bunny.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
Zomg! At this rate it might make it to two days!

 

[Jenga]

i live in canada, good god you americans live in a third world country!!!!

 

[Zoe]

i live in canada, good god you americans live in a third world country!!!!

Ugh, I thought this thread had gone on long enough to avoid these posts.

 

[Jenga]

Ugh, I thought this thread had gone on long enough to avoid these posts.

didn't I see you in that texas-gaf thread

 

[Zoe]

didn't I see you in that texas-gaf thread

So?

 

[Jenga]

So?

the implication is that I'm from texas (in case you somehow took that seriously) and I made a post teasing the occasional habit of certain europeans to respond to this kind of news in a manner making fun of america

in other words, I made a joke

don't get your panties in a bunch

 

[Shanadeus]

OH SHIT
Now pro-burning GAF will repent and come out in full force against the fire department...

GAF, A FUCKING CAT DIED IN THAT FIRE.

>:-(

They let an innocent creature burn to death

How can you defend the firefighters decision when you know that their inaction led to several deaths?

 

[water_wendi]

Keith Olberman interviews Gene Cranick

i like how Olberman is saying that the $75 is an "additional fee." No.. its the only fee. They dont want to pay taxes to establish a fire department. Its also got nothing to do with the Tea Party or firefighting for profit. This Cranick guy can go fuck himself. He knew for 20 years that he wasnt getting fire coverage. If i were mayor of these cities that offer protection to those without fire departments i would just stop offering fire service outside city limits.

edit: And fuck this guy again for doing the Olberman interview in a fucking wheelchair. The other day he seemed to do news interviews standing up and walking around just fine.

 

[Escape Goat]

They let an innocent creature burn to death

How can you defend the firefighters decision when you know that their inaction led to several deaths?

Humans > Cats


i'd not risk my team over a cat of a cheapskate home owner who tried to dodge the rules.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Let the free market decide!

 

[N4Us]

Was about to post a Rand picture but hey, this works too!

 

[SapientWolf]

Everyone covered by the fire department pays in advance, either through the fee or through taxes. If you let people not pay in advance and still get covered the system breaks down. The chances of your house burning down are incredibly slim, people wouldn't pay (like this guy).

People would still pay because you get a discount on your homeowner's insurance for doing so.

What the fire department did in this case was incredibly irresponsible. Safety comes first, which is why hospitals treat people who cannot pay and electric companies don't shut off power when people could freeze to death. In addition, anyone lobbying for a fire department funded by taxes is going to have an easy time painting these guys as extortionists that need to be replaced.

 

[sangreal]

People would still pay because you get a discount on your homeowner's insurance for doing so.

Yet this guy didn't pay.

What the fire department did in this case was incredibly irresponsible. Safety comes first, which is why hospitals treat people who cannot pay and electric companies don't shut off power when people could freeze to death.

Hospitals do not treat people who cannot pay. They are obligated by law to stabilize people who come in with emergencies. Beyond that, pay up. People die because they can't afford medical treatment all the time. As I understand it, the fire department responds when lives are in danger regardless of payment.

In addition, anyone lobbying for a fire department funded by taxes is going to have an easy time painting these guys as extortionists that need to be replaced.

The fire department is funded by taxes and it serves everyone in the city which collects taxes and funds the fire department. This family does not live in that city (or any city).

You can read a (rejected) plan for a county-wide fire service here: http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

Some things to note: Over 75% of fires these cities have to deal with are on rural land outside of city limits. Over 50% of the calls go unpaid and the cities have no way to collect payment.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Zomg! At this rate it might make it to two days!

More of the point of what else need be said, but eh, whatever.

 

[Shanadeus]

Humans > Cats


i'd not risk my team over a cat of a cheapskate home owner who tried to dodge the rules.

That's because you're no firefighter.
Why do you think the stereotype regarding firefighters have them rescuing kittens from high places?
It's because it's an essential part of their job, to care and rescue those that cannot save themselves - like a small feeble kitten who will mew at you trapped in an inferno of fire.

A firefighter not rescuing a poor creature like that isn't human.