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?
We’re in agreement. Let up on the friendly fire? ;)
The background is that this community doesn’t have their own fire department.
Wow. I usually don't agree with you on much, but we are on the same page with this.
this a bribe pure and simple ....if this is not a violation of federal law it damm well ought to be
If true, then the Homeowner’s policy would mandate that the fee be paid in order for the insurance to be valid.
this a bribe pure and simple ....if this is not a violation of federal law it damm well ought to be
I am sick and tired of the moochers who do not contribute, but then want the rest of us to pay for them.
That goes for welfare,food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid.
If people knew that they could avoid paying a $75 fee, and take the chance that their house does not burn down- then statistics are on their side.How many house fires in that area? Maybe one or two a year? You propose charging the deadbeats $500 if they do not pay the fee. That means the fire department would recieve maybe $1000 a year, because everyone would take their chances and not pay the fee.
People have to contribute to basic services, and not rely on other taxpayers to carry the load for them.
Let the house burn down.
Those in the community need to get off their rears and form a fire department to serve their community. That is IF they WANT a fire department.
That way we won’t need to listen to City folk who can’t imagine life without government whine about the harsh realities of living outside of cities.
“So now the taxpayer will have to pay food stamps, welfare,”
Food stamps and welfare should be eliminated TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s garbage. If someone doesn’t share your point of view, you put them down. How mature! Watching a house burn down is simply wrong.
In colonial days, if a house was struck by lightning, they let it burn down because it was “God’s” will. Sadly, I think we have regressed from those days. At least they thought it was God’s will; today it’s all about the cash.
It’s all about the lawyers. Really it is.
I see few, if any, people advocating for free fire protection. Most of the people beating their chests saying “let it burn” are apparently incapable of logical thought. If you are uninsured, you are *not* denied the opportunity to purchase the product at market rates (except, apparently, in this case). Those without health insurance can still get medical care - you simply pay for the cost at the point of service rather than through a third-party insurance provider. This works the same way on any type of insurance.
The sane and proper response is to ask the homeowner whether they want the fire department to respond and fight the fire and be billed afterwards or let the home burn. Will people make rational decisions at that time? Maybe. I do not know what an appropriate fee would be, but I do not think the cost of fighting the fire, were one to actually occur, would be that substantial.
It is about the cash, because no one works for free.
You should not expect someone to work for free.
You should not expect someone purchasing equipment for your protection for free.
You should not expect other people to contribute to your bad financial decisions.
There should be a penalty.
How are you going to support a fire department when they only get paid to fight a fire when it occurs?
A fire department is an insurance policy, rarely used, but there when you need it.
They need a consistent funding source.
No one will pay if they know that they will only get charged if a fire happens.
Welcome to this discussion. I see - as predicted - you are arriving with knee-jerking reactions.
“Watching a house burn down is simply wrong.”
Once (if you care to be) you are up to speed on the basics of this issue... please show us where these fire fighters watched a house burn down.
Guess what, sweetie? They didn’t watch a house burn down. I’ll leave it to you to inform yourself on why there were there and what they were really doing. That is... if you want to take the time to make an informed post.
There are dozens and dozens of “protection plans” available for most anything in this world. What you are suggesting is that if I didn’t buy an extended warranty for Appliance X and that item breaks, then I won’t pay the repair costs because I didn’t pay for the protection plan. This is not supported by reality. It’s a choice between paying up front based on the possibility of loss (an insurance model) or paying when you need the service (a fee-for-service model). The only difference is that the fire department did not offer a fee-for-service model - it was paying the protection money up front or you get no service at all.
As for the second point, perhaps you’re simply uninformed.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-again-135069773.html
“But once on the scene, they only watched.”
If you’re suggesting they were there to protect other homes, they failed at that too as I have already outlined.
“Those without health insurance can still get medical care - you simply pay for the cost at the point of service rather than through a third-party insurance provider”
I work in health care, most people without insurance receive the care, and then do not pay. This increases the health care premiums for the rest of us.
I live in the country for your info we pay taxs and have a good fire dept we dont pay any fees like this ...This is just banana republic bull shit
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.