Posted on 12/07/2011 7:30:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The last time this happened, our thread ran for more than 1,100 comments. To refresh your memory: The city charges a $75 fee up front for firefighter services throughout the year. Pay the fee and the F.D. will show up and douse the flames that are consuming your home. Don’t pay and the F.D. will show up and … watch it burn. I can understand a policy in which paying the fee gives you priority over a non-payer if your house and their house are on fire simultaneously and the department has to choose which to respond to. And I can understand a policy where paying a small flat fee discharges you from further responsibility for the cost of fighting the fire whereas a non-payer is forced to reimburse the department for all of their expenses afterward. In that case, the fee operates as de facto fire insurance. What I don’t understand is a policy where the F.D. will show up to a blaze but give the non-paying owner no option to get them to fight it. If the owner’s middle class, he’ll likely have some savings with which to reimburse the department for the cost; if the owner’s poor, he could agree to have his wages garnished going forward to partially reimburse them. Either way, the resulting hardship should be enough of a deterrent to encourage people to pay the fee ahead of time.
If you disagree, then should the fee simply be mandated as a tax? All this is, really, is an analogue for the health-care debate. We don’t let doctors opt to let poor people suffer in an emergency just because they don’t have insurance. Why let a family go homeless?
DEJA VU. if you don’t buy the insurance, donn’t expect coverage...
And? So now the taxpayer will have to pay food stamps, welfare, etc which will cost far more than $75.
This is pure idiocy once again.
I bet next time they will pay for the fire protection.
Kind of ironic.
Pay the $75 and you house won’t burn down.
But when the Muslims finally take over, you must pay the dhimmi tax, or your house WILL burn down.
I disagree. They chose not to pay for Fire Department support. And they didn't get it.
so why’d they show up at all?
OT for a truck roll?
To keep the fire from spreading to the paying customers.
not as simple as that.
there is only ONE fire fighting service.
there is no competition allowed.
where is the competition? if the 75 is really “optional” then there should not be a monopoly.
This is about making a TAX that is based on payment via extortion.
I just LOVE the smell of SOCIAL DARWINISM in the morning!
Glad nobody was hurt.
Yep. And, there’s no guarantee even if they paid the $75 that their home would have been saved, either. The volunteer fire department that covers the area where my farm is located (SE Tennessee) had one burn down right across the street from the fire hall. (and the home owner was paid up)I’m a volunteer fireman in another nearby district and have been for over 25 years. I’ve been to dozens of house fires. It’s rare that we get there in time to save a structure. Mostly, we’re there to keep it from spreading if there are other houses nearby. If you are depending on a volunteer fire department to save your house your best bet is homeowner’s insurance.
because the competing fire department was less expensive or more expensive? oh yes there is no competition allowed for this hiddent tax.
“they chose to suffocate because they did not pay the voluntary algore air tax...”
Where did this happen?
i disagree,. this is like an insirance policy. TAXES are compulsory. and why couldn’t there NOT be multiple fire companies? if there’s a law prohibiting multiple fire companies, then it would at most be a monopoly. if the locals wanted this to be a government service, they have had many opporrunities to make this happen over the years. it’s insurance, and nobody forces you to buy it. there are conswquences however,adn this guy played the odds andlost.
Well, in my rural MO county, the VFD is funded through tax payer grants and they also ask for support in form of donations and “membership”. I asked the Chief if non-membership would result in a non-response to a home fire and he said “no, we got sued and lost and since our equipment is public property, we must respond if possible to any and all calls within our area, and assist other municpal and rural FDs if they ask...”. Members receive no bill, non-members get a bill for $500 per hour and any consumable materials expended.... Which my home owners insurance noted were covered costs....
My HO policy has no provision for RFD membership or not.
Check out the policies of your local RFD and your HO policy.
It’s one thing to give preference to those who pay. It’s another thing altogether to show up, not having any fires to fight, and watch somebody’s house burn (presumably while saying “Wow, that sucks.”). It’s a simple matter of doing the right thing.
This is *not* really similar to the health care debate. 99.9% of that is about non-emergency situations - prescriptions, colds, aches and pains, and whatnot. If you’re going to compare this to health care, then a proper comparison would be doctors who are otherwise unoccupied let a patient bleed out and die in the ER because he doesn’t have insurance. Fortunately, our doctors are better than that and understand what the right thing to do.
Ask the country if medical care should be provided to all free of charge and you’ll probably start the same debate we’ve been having for years. Ask them if immediately life-saving medical care should be provided to all and the answer will be radically different. This depends, of course, on the willing participation of medical providers, but history has shown us that doctors and nurses do not hesitate to save lives in immediate danger and they do so by prioritizing those at most immediate risk, not by prioritizing those who can pay.
The mindset displayed in this story is nothing more than the Kitty Genovese story with a slightly different cast of characters.
Tango Sierra
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.