Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,868 posts, read 26,498,769 times
Reputation: 25768

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
This is what we use during our yearly fund raising at my volunteer FD, those prices are fairly close to today's numbers. When you have 20 - 30 guys working a fire the money starts to add up really quickly.
Alot of those prices don't shock me...but the BA sure does. I didn't know they were going for $4k now. It's an expensive business. Alot of our gear was hand-me-downs from bigger, tax funded departments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:28 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,189,362 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11 View Post
Your theory is to "buy the coverage after the wreck".

What's wrong with a homeowner exercising some personal responsibility? One can make all kinds of excuses for the homeowner, but the FACT remains that the homeowner consciously made a decision NOT to pay for fire protection as stated in the article.

Apparently it is acceptable for an individual to shirk his/her responsiblity to the family. Life is fully of choices. Why encourage others to make bad choices if they live near this Tennessee town?
Again, this isn't insurance...it's a fee for use. If it were insurance, then i could see your pointl

Look, i'm done arguing on this topic. I've said my peace and you've said yours. I don't want to live in a country where firefighters let a place burn down over 75 bucks. You do.

We can agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:37 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Again, this isn't insurance...it's a fee for use. If it were insurance, then i could see your pointl

Look, i'm done arguing on this topic. I've said my peace and you've said yours. I don't want to live in a country where firefighters let a place burn down over 75 bucks. You do.

We can agree to disagree.
It's not fee for use. How do you get that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:41 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,189,362 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
It's not fee for use. How do you get that?
You pay a 75 dollar fee, you get to use the fire departments services.

Anyway, like i said...i'm done. No minds are getting changed here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:46 PM
 
656 posts, read 648,345 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Alot of those prices don't shock me...but the BA sure does. I didn't know they were going for $4k now. It's an expensive business. Alot of our gear was hand-me-downs from bigger, tax funded departments.
Things are cheap in Jewel Lake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:50 PM
 
78,385 posts, read 60,579,949 times
Reputation: 49663
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
You pay a 75 dollar fee, you get to use the fire departments services.

Anyway, like i said...i'm done. No minds are getting changed here.
Doesn't Obama's healthcare plan have mandatory aspects to it to keep deadbeats from sticking everyone else with their bill? Shouldn't we just make it optional where you don't have to pay in but still get coverage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:51 PM
 
78,385 posts, read 60,579,949 times
Reputation: 49663
Smart money says these are the same type of d-bags that drive without insurance and then jack up other people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:52 PM
 
1,384 posts, read 2,346,359 times
Reputation: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
You pay a 75 dollar fee, you get to use the fire departments services.

Anyway, like i said...i'm done. No minds are getting changed here.

I'm not quite sure that's how it works. If I start a bon-fire in my backyard, I don't think I can have the fire department come put it out just because I paid the $75.

Tough break freeloaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 02:56 PM
 
2,643 posts, read 2,443,262 times
Reputation: 1928
I cant believe people are actually defending this. Its a greater cost to the community that this house was burnt down. So the county can save 75$, they just lost someone who probably paid thousands in property taxes and payed local taxes. Great logic there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,697 posts, read 6,447,121 times
Reputation: 5047
I haven't read all 148 posts in this thread, so I apologize if someone has already made this point.

Yes, I agree with those who say that the service must be paid for. But I'm struck by the following passages in the story:

Quote:
It's happened multiple times before in one local community: firefighters refuse to respond because the homeowner didn't pay a fire subscription fee.
And

Quote:
Bell said, "9-1-1 said they were in fact dispatched and they showed that they were on the scene."

But once on the scene, they only watched.
OK. But compare that to the official explanation also given in the story.

Quote:
"There's no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," Mayor David Crocker said.
But the firefighters were already there.

The manpower and equipment were already on the scene, and according to the story, they stayed there while the house burned down. Other than the cost of water not used by the firefighters, exactly what money was saved in having the manpower and equipment show up and then do nothing??

Me, I'd pay the 75 bucks. But in this specific instance, I think the firefighters who showed up and then watched the house burn without lifting a finger to help are pitiful excuses for human beings, much less firefighters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:40 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top