Video: Great Debate On The Whole "Firemen Refuse To Put Out Fire" Controversy

The Hope For America ^ | 10/6/10 | Angela McGlowan, Andy Levy

[GonzoGOP]

And please understand the guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot of almost impossible proportions. I have no sympathy for that guy in the least.
Yes, you do.

You think the fire should have been put out.

No now you are putting words into my mouth to support your argument. The firemen were under no obligation to put out the fire. And they didn't. But often business do more than they are required to do for public relations purposes. But each business needs to evaluate if the PR is worth it. In the case of the firemen the PR wasn't worth $75. So be it.

Of course that decision comes with some bad PR. And there will be a price paid in the good will of the community for that. They act like a business, they should fully expect to be treated like any other business. NO more, no less.

For example I pay for an extended drive train warranty on my car. If the car breaks I expect the dealer to fix it. If I don't pay and it breaks, I'm out of luck. But it is strictly a financial arrangement. I don't expect the car dealer to go beyond the terms of the agreement, and car dealer expects nothing more than my pre negotiated payment me. If a car falls of the jack and squishes the guy it quite literally isn't my problem. In fact I would expect another car dealer to honor the warranty.

That same financial only arrangement does not exist, or at least previously has not existed, with firefighters. How many times after 9/11 were we asked to open our wallets for the families of the fire fighters killed that day? Like many other I sent in my check. And how many millions of dollars poured into New York City afterwords? That is the value of a community's good will.

The guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot. The firefighters decided to make an example of him for all the other people who didn't pay. As I have repeatedly stated they had every right to do it. It was a business decision, possibly a very good business decision. But they need to accept the consequences of that decision as much as the homeowner (foundation owner now) has to accept the consequences of his decision. He thought he was saving $75 gambling that he would never need the firefighters. He was wrong, he paid the price. The firefighters will certainly have a much easier time getting their $75 now. In exchange for easier collections they are, gambling that they will not need the good will of the community in the future. Whether or not it is a good deal will depend on what happens next.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In exchange for easier collections they are, gambling that they will not need the good will of the community in the future.

They will have the goodwill of law-abiding people who pay their bills and take care of their responsibilities.

They will not have the goodwill of the parasites, except that the parasites are too busy watching Oprah to notice.

[Oztrich Boy]

They all got paid to stand there and watch it burn so not getting paid doesn’t hold much water.

They got paid to be ready to protect the house of the neighbour who had paid the $75.

[RobRoy]

>>You are correct they should have bought the fire insurance. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them.<<

There is actually more to it than that. The owner was weighing the cost of insurance with the likelihood of his home catching on fire. It is the simple risk mitigation formula that considers three areas:

1. The likelihood of something happening.
2. The impact if it does happen.
3. The cost of protection from the event.

The three should be weighted and considered before an answer regarding what action to take is reached. And looking at the above three points it is easy to see why we don’t harden our homes from meteor strikes. Number three is rather cost prohibitive.

This homeowner made the mistake of focusing on the simple fact that, although number one is very low indeed (few homes actually catch on fire these days), he ignored the fact that number 3 was absurdly low.

Honestly, the odds were grossly in his favor, but it is never a sure thing.

[RobRoy]

I honestly think the firemen did the right thing. This could have been right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged.

And trust me, John Galt would have very much agreed with what the firemen did. It also sent a message. If you want insurance, you will have to pay for it. I’d like to see people required to pay a fee BEFORE they go hiking if they want search and rescue to lift a finger. Sure, volunteers can still do whatever they want to to help, but an organization that has paid staff will only help those who have paid for the services.

Imagine if all our services were handled similarly. The one exception would be national security, “state militias” and courts/jails. And that is really the only area where government is absolutely required. It is just meddling in the other areas.

[Ditter]

Didn’t I read or hear him say he never expected that the firemen would refuse to protect him in the event his house caught fire? He bet the cost of his house, belongings and pets against a $75. fee........... and he was WRONG! I really can’t feel sorry for him. Did he have a home owners fire insurance policy?

[RobRoy]

>>Didn’t I read or hear him say he never expected that the firemen would refuse to protect him in the event his house caught fire?<<

And what happened to him sort of clears up that question for everyone who had not bought, as well as those who did and wondered if it mattered.

This is an example of tough love in action.