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.
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.
“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.