No, that would be the communist thing. The county has a limited tax base, the country could not afford a Fire Department; so using Conservative principles, they created one and told everyone that cost of coverage was $75/family home. If you wanted Fire Department protection, this was the only way they could afford to provide it. Some people paid the $75, some took their chances.
How is it fair to those who paid the $75, if this sevice is given to someone who didn't pay? If they went to this guy's home - NO ONE would pay $75 the following year, because there would be no reason to pay it. What are the odds of your home catching fire? Why pay $75 now, if you can wait until you NEED a Fire Department and then pay?
This is EXACTLY like not paying for Medical Insurance, until you are diagnosed with Cancer. Then facing a $750,000 bill you go to your Medical Insurance provider and write a check for $500 and demand retro-active coverage. Sorry ...
If someone doesn't have medical insurance, you don't kick them to the curb. You treat them and bill them, and then sell their house if you have to to recover your expenses.
Which is hard to do if you let it burn to the ground.
They did go to the guy’s house and watched that the fire didn’t spread to neighbor’s house—one who DID pay. That seems to imply that if the neighbor hadn’t paid, they would do nothing to stop the fire from going to that house, too.
There’s nothing conservative about letting a family home burn to the ground. Certainly not over seventy-five bucks. It’s not an ideological issue at all. That has to be the most small-minded thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s beyond pathetic. It is truly disgusting.
Which part of the phrase “bill them later” was unclear to you?