-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
fire dept wouldn't put the fire out...
- Thread starter Letterbox Mike
- Start date
Rooster
New Member
I have to agree. You tend not to complain so much about taxes when you see that get something for your money. A case like this makes me grateful for what we have here.
I grew up in the prairies and have friends who have been part of rural volunteer departments. Shoot I've even been out to a fire with them before. Not once did I ever hear anybody asking who was going to pay for the service, or anybody ever talk about something being out of their territory. If it's on fire, you put it out. Because it's the right thing to do.
I don't have health insurance, to get treatment, I just have to pay the cost.
Same with this fire, if the fire department is short of funds, this is the time to make some money as all their personnel & equipment are sitting idle.
Charge him the full cost will be the common sense thing to do. And then again, common sense and public employee, oxymoron!
Even if he refuse to pay, it will be a great training exercise for the dept.
What does these firemen do, when there is no fire? What is a basic requirement to be a firemen? To protect and to serve those who paid me?
Do you hear an off-duty police officer watch idlely while a crime in progress?
Same with this fire, if the fire department is short of funds, this is the time to make some money as all their personnel & equipment are sitting idle.
Charge him the full cost will be the common sense thing to do. And then again, common sense and public employee, oxymoron!
Even if he refuse to pay, it will be a great training exercise for the dept.
What does these firemen do, when there is no fire? What is a basic requirement to be a firemen? To protect and to serve those who paid me?
Do you hear an off-duty police officer watch idlely while a crime in progress?
signmeup
New Member
Now there's a good quote! Of course, Canadians have a reputation of looking out for each other..... and other countries.
royster13
New Member
Well Signmeup you would be wrong...There are 100s of jurisdictions in Canada that will not respond to a fire outside their boundaries....Folks that live in rural areas with no fire protection make the choice to get what they pay for......So at the end of the day, they have to live with their decisions....
PS....181.65 of my taxes this year was attributed to my fire department....
PS....181.65 of my taxes this year was attributed to my fire department....
Many posters have said allowing the guy to pay when the fire department showed up defeats the purpose of insurance. Insurance collects from many who will not need the service so there are funds to reimburse those who do need the service. The argument is "If we could just pay the fee when we need it why would any one bother to pay upfront."
Why do we realize its illogical to allow someone to pay for fire protection only after their house is ablaze but think it perfectly great to require health insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions. Why buy insurance, if I have a heart attack I'll have my wife call for a policy while the ambulance brings me to the ER.
OK slightly over the top example but it's the same concept
Why do we realize its illogical to allow someone to pay for fire protection only after their house is ablaze but think it perfectly great to require health insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions. Why buy insurance, if I have a heart attack I'll have my wife call for a policy while the ambulance brings me to the ER.
OK slightly over the top example but it's the same concept
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Let's put things a little into perspective here.
This guy has a house burning and no one will help him.
No one's in it and nothing but material things are going up in flames.
Your scenario has to do with a human being and their health. No one will let another human being die, unless they have a written living will which prevents certain measures from taking place.
If you are driving an automobile or some other motorized vehicle without insurance, you certainly won't be able to obtain insurance at the scene of an accident.
You go over to Joe's house and shoot him in the head because he's messing around with your wife, you can't take out an insurance policy for that at all, but you probably feel a heck of a lot better. Then you go plead you were insane and you're off the hook anyways............
Gsign,
It is not allow them to pay the premium when on fire, it is to pay the true cost and then some! That is a hefty penalty considering you can pay 100 years of $75 premium, or pay $7,500 cost to put off the fire. This way, every party gained.
Same as your heart attack example, you have to pay the full cost of by pass surgery, when you are not insured. You can tell them you'd rather die than pay the full cost, that home owner should be offered a choice to pay for all cost of putting off the fire or let it burn. Not just the $75.
It is not allow them to pay the premium when on fire, it is to pay the true cost and then some! That is a hefty penalty considering you can pay 100 years of $75 premium, or pay $7,500 cost to put off the fire. This way, every party gained.
Same as your heart attack example, you have to pay the full cost of by pass surgery, when you are not insured. You can tell them you'd rather die than pay the full cost, that home owner should be offered a choice to pay for all cost of putting off the fire or let it burn. Not just the $75.
Gino, you miss my point.
I'm not equating letting the house burn with giving someone medical treatment. I'm questioning why ignoring pre-existing conditions which is basically lets someone buy insurance at the time they need it is one of the great benefits of our new health care law but when we apply that same concept in a different situation everyone realizes it doesn't make sense.
And lest you think people won't put off buying insurance until they need medical care look at Massachusetts. They have a large number of new people every year who come into the system, get medical treatment and then drop out, leaving the rest of the pool to cover those costs.
I'm not equating letting the house burn with giving someone medical treatment. I'm questioning why ignoring pre-existing conditions which is basically lets someone buy insurance at the time they need it is one of the great benefits of our new health care law but when we apply that same concept in a different situation everyone realizes it doesn't make sense.
And lest you think people won't put off buying insurance until they need medical care look at Massachusetts. They have a large number of new people every year who come into the system, get medical treatment and then drop out, leaving the rest of the pool to cover those costs.
weaselboogie
New Member
Perhaps the people in the community that oppose the policy would be generous enough to pick up the tab on those who choose not to pay.
And then later, you can watch monkeys fly out of my butt.
And then later, you can watch monkeys fly out of my butt.
CES020
New Member
Couldn't agree any more!
The majority of people on here are stuck on the part about the guy knew that it was $75. Sorry, that's no excuse not to protect his home from being destroyed. You think I'm wrong? Okay, let's apply the same logic used throughout this post on other things.....
Drunk driving accident, guy leaves a bar, drunk, wrecks his car. Does the fire/EMS show up? They shouldn't according to the logic being used. They shouldn't because they guy knew he was drinking, he knew he wasn't supposed to drive, yet he did it. Yet they would respond.
Guy decided to take wrestling to a new high and jumps off his roof onto a table. Breaks his leg. Does EMS come? They shouldn't, because the guy was doing something he knew was stupid and the risk.
Life is full of people making poor, stupid choices and getting hurt or causing damages. However, in almost all other cases, fire/EMS responds. So how come it's okay to ignore this guys stupid decision, but it's not okay to ignore someone else's stupid decision?
Sorry, I agree with Signmeup. Any person that calls themselves a firefighter and watches someone's house burn because they didn't pay a bill deserves to be fired. They should have put it out and sent him a bill for $5000 or whatever the cost ended up being.
Just my opinion.
threeputt
New Member
Some people using some twisted logic here. They'd be an embarrasment in a debate class.
I'll say this, the behavior that gets rewarded is the behavior that gets repeated. Ponder...how many people are going to ante up their seventy five bucks next year if gets around they 'll put out your fire anyway, paid or not?
Dumb.
I'll say this, the behavior that gets rewarded is the behavior that gets repeated. Ponder...how many people are going to ante up their seventy five bucks next year if gets around they 'll put out your fire anyway, paid or not?
Dumb.
Jet Fast Printing
New Member
While I did not read the whole thread, his cost for fire protection was $75.00 a year ($6.25 a month, or about 20 cents a day) and he did not want to pay it..... your fault, have a nice day. akin to driving a car without insurance.
I'm sure the people within the city limits are paying MUCH more for fire protection with property taxes, seems like the guy living outside city limits was getting a deal.
Sucks for him.
I'm sure the people within the city limits are paying MUCH more for fire protection with property taxes, seems like the guy living outside city limits was getting a deal.
Sucks for him.
CES020
New Member
I'd still fire any fireman or EMS that refused to give service, jurisdiction or not, $75 or not. So you're saying it's okay to let someone's house burn down over principle, then right?
So we'll stick to our principles while people's homes burn to the ground. Now there's a public servant for you. I'd remember all their faces and if anyone was ever in the need of my service, I'd drive right by them. Maybe the guy is a doctor and if they need help, he can refuse to help them? I don't think so.
So we'll stick to our principles while people's homes burn to the ground. Now there's a public servant for you. I'd remember all their faces and if anyone was ever in the need of my service, I'd drive right by them. Maybe the guy is a doctor and if they need help, he can refuse to help them? I don't think so.
signmeup
New Member
What's dumb is the inability of supposedly intelligent people to be unable to comprhend a simple concept:
Don't want to pay the $75 bucks. Fine. If your house catches fire you'll have to pay whatever it costs for us to put it out. Let's say $10,000. People who did pay the $75 will see the guy fork over $10,000 and think, "I'm sure glad I paid the $75." ($10,000 is more than the guy would have paid if he paid the $75 for 100 years.)
If he doesn't pay seize the house, sell it and he can have whatever's left after everyone gets paid.
Here's an even easier concept: Stick the $75 on everyones property tax like they do where I live.
showcase 66
New Member
It is a liability issue more than anything. Fire districts have limitations. If you live in the district you are covered, if you dont you are not. The state fire marshal has to give the ok for a city to even extend their service to other nearby areas. Even by extending to these people, the state will not give any extra funding. That is why they must pay to have this service.
Think of it this way. You are a contractor in one state to put up signs and you live within minutes of another state which you are not licensed to install signs. People call you from over in the other state to put up a sign. Are you going to do it? Nope! If you did you run the chance of being sued for not being a licensed contractor in that state. If the sign fails and injures someone is your insurance going to cover it? Nope! Because you were not licensed to do work there.
The city has to have insurance for everything they do just like you and I. If they step out of the limitations of their insurance, the insurance will not cover anything that may happen. So if the fire dept went in and stopped the fire with out having them under a "contract so to speak" and they broke an antique vase worth $100,000 the home owners could turn around and sue the city for damages caused by the fire fighters. Insurance is not going to cover it because they stepped out the fire district.
Nobodies life was in danger. Everyone was out of the house and not in any danger. Ask any civil service person you know, ie: fireman, policeman, Dr., nurse and they will tell you that their code of ethics is revolved around the person, not the property.
Drunk driving accident, guy leaves a bar, drunk, wrecks his car. Does the fire/EMS show up? They shouldn't according to the logic being used. They shouldn't because they guy knew he was drinking, he knew he wasn't supposed to drive, yet he did it. Yet they would respond.
Your logic on this is wrong. Yes they are stupid in doing what they are doing, but still a human life is more important than any physical object.
If they wanted the fire dept to do anything about it, one of them should have ran back into the house. Then they would have worked at the fire until they got whomever out. Or they could have called and said that the house was on fire and they have business reloading shells and have hundreds of pounds of gun powder in there. They definitely would have been doing something then.
Think of it this way. You are a contractor in one state to put up signs and you live within minutes of another state which you are not licensed to install signs. People call you from over in the other state to put up a sign. Are you going to do it? Nope! If you did you run the chance of being sued for not being a licensed contractor in that state. If the sign fails and injures someone is your insurance going to cover it? Nope! Because you were not licensed to do work there.
The city has to have insurance for everything they do just like you and I. If they step out of the limitations of their insurance, the insurance will not cover anything that may happen. So if the fire dept went in and stopped the fire with out having them under a "contract so to speak" and they broke an antique vase worth $100,000 the home owners could turn around and sue the city for damages caused by the fire fighters. Insurance is not going to cover it because they stepped out the fire district.
Nobodies life was in danger. Everyone was out of the house and not in any danger. Ask any civil service person you know, ie: fireman, policeman, Dr., nurse and they will tell you that their code of ethics is revolved around the person, not the property.
Drunk driving accident, guy leaves a bar, drunk, wrecks his car. Does the fire/EMS show up? They shouldn't according to the logic being used. They shouldn't because they guy knew he was drinking, he knew he wasn't supposed to drive, yet he did it. Yet they would respond.
Your logic on this is wrong. Yes they are stupid in doing what they are doing, but still a human life is more important than any physical object.
If they wanted the fire dept to do anything about it, one of them should have ran back into the house. Then they would have worked at the fire until they got whomever out. Or they could have called and said that the house was on fire and they have business reloading shells and have hundreds of pounds of gun powder in there. They definitely would have been doing something then.
Jet Fast Printing
New Member
You are missing the point, they did not work for him. They were out of their jurisdiction. They might have lost their jobs for doing anything, what if one of the firemen got hurt, would the insurance company cover them since they were not in their jurisdiction? They are not his "Public Servant". Yes a doctor can walk past a person dying on the street. But a publicly funded hospital MUST take him. Privately owned hospitals can and will ship him to a Public hospital.
Not saying it's right, just the way it is.
showcase 66
New Member
Ethically a doctor can NOT walk past a person dying on the street. He must stop do what he can, until someone comes to relieve him. A Dr. can loose their license for this. Private hospitals must take any patient in IF they are the only hospital around. If there are two or more hospitals then they can send you away or have an ambulance take them to another hospital.
When I was a kid still living at home (about 50 yrs. ago) a house caught fire about a mile up the road from our house. When the city fire truck went passed our house, we jumped on our bikes and followed it.
The house was blazing and the firemen did nothing. A short time later the local VFD from about five miles away showed up and started fighting the fire. They had it almost out, then ran out of water. The nearest hydrant was right at our house. (one mile away).
They left the fire, went to fill the truck and by the time they got back, the house was blazing again. They did this three times until another VFD showed up to transport water. The whole time the city fire dept. just sat in their truck and watched. I could never understand this until I was old enough to realize the city could/would not fight a fire if it was not in the city limits. I guess I still don't understand the reasoning behind all the so called correct things to do during times like these.
I agree the guy was a free loader for not paying the fee, but I think if the insurance for the VFD that showed up would have covered the firemen and equipment, they should have done something. I don't think we know all of the facts reguarding why they didn't put out the fire.
I do know when our house caught fire about 15 years ago, by the time the VFD showed up, it couldn't be saved enough to rebuild. I told the Captain to just let it burn to the ground. His comment was; under law, he was obligated to put it out.
Dave
The house was blazing and the firemen did nothing. A short time later the local VFD from about five miles away showed up and started fighting the fire. They had it almost out, then ran out of water. The nearest hydrant was right at our house. (one mile away).
They left the fire, went to fill the truck and by the time they got back, the house was blazing again. They did this three times until another VFD showed up to transport water. The whole time the city fire dept. just sat in their truck and watched. I could never understand this until I was old enough to realize the city could/would not fight a fire if it was not in the city limits. I guess I still don't understand the reasoning behind all the so called correct things to do during times like these.
I agree the guy was a free loader for not paying the fee, but I think if the insurance for the VFD that showed up would have covered the firemen and equipment, they should have done something. I don't think we know all of the facts reguarding why they didn't put out the fire.
I do know when our house caught fire about 15 years ago, by the time the VFD showed up, it couldn't be saved enough to rebuild. I told the Captain to just let it burn to the ground. His comment was; under law, he was obligated to put it out.
Dave