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.
I really do NOT understand how anyone with FF blood in them could watch or know, that a house was burning down (maybe there are some kids who can't get out?) over $75.
If I remember correctly the Fireman wanted to help but they were specifically instructed not to. Many of them were disturbed by watching a house burn.
Quote:
Don't make people pay for what might never happen.
Isn't that what Auto insurance is? And that is mandatory.
I am very torn on this topic. I see both sides of the issue and both are valid. I think the main problem is because we are talking about something so devastating as losing everything and potentially life in a house fire, people, including myself, think with their heart/emotion. I lost everything in a house fire in 1992 and I lost my beloved pet so believe me, I completely understand what those people were going through. I had a fire department respond but ended up in the same situation. But I also see the side of intentionally not paying for a service and expecting it when needed, which is not entirely fair either. Which is why I think the extra fee is a good idea, although the one quoted in that article is a bit excessive, because if there were no consequences then no one would pay.
I think the real solution is that the towns who cannot provide emergency services should contract with the surrounding towns directly and pay the fee so everyone is covered. Then raise property taxes to reflect whatever the negotiated fee is. That is essentially what happens in towns where there are Fire departments - we pay taxes that support them and have no choice. It's the option not to pay that is the main problem.
Like I said, put the fire out and back-charge for every year that person did NOT pay his/her paltry $75 fee. OR just do your damn job.
that really wouldnt be appropriate. you arent paying the $75 for them to come out, you are paying (along with many others) for them to maintain an operational force to be available when it happens and cover their ongoing expenses. its like buying a term life insurance policy, never paying the premium and then upon death pay the $1000 worth of unpaid premiums for the $1 million payout.
so in order to be appropriate, you would need to charge actual expenses times some kind of multiple of the costs. it would probably have to be $10k+ or so in order to make sense.
i understand that this isnt a happy decision or a good thing. but in order for the system to be in place, some people need to pay the fees and its not fair for some people to bear the burden while others choose not to but still want to get the service if they need it. those people are parasites.
I am just wondering if people who agree with letting homes burn if someone didn't pay, do you also agree that it's fine that the pets were allowed to die in the fire?
Like I said, put the fire out and back-charge for every year that person did NOT pay his/her paltry $75 fee.
That's not sufficient, because it means it makes perfect economic sense to not pay the fee. You'd need to charge a huge amount to non-subscribers to keep the incentives straight -- and then people would cry that the FD was gouging when they demanded the money while the non-subscriber's house was on fire.
Quote:
OR just do your damn job.
Their job is to put out fires for people who paid, either through taxes (in the town) or through the subscription. Not to put out fires for freeloaders.
I am just wondering if people who agree with letting homes burn if someone didn't pay, do you also agree that it's fine that the pets were allowed to die in the fire?
I don't think any person should ever risk their life to save an animal. So in that broad context I have no issue with it.
I'm not sure what you are implying. Are you saying firefighters never risk their lives to enter a building?
99% of the time they know if it's safe enough to enter or not. If it's not a great risk, they do save pets. A stupid mobile park home in the above case is not a complex structure to save things from. They could bill people later for full cost instead of $75 fee like they do in hospitals if you don't have insurance.
Retarded ass south.
Last edited by OleSchoolFool; 04-08-2012 at 11:27 AM..
What the firefighters did was unforgivable. They are paid for by tax dollars that homeowner paid. If they are a volunteer fire Dept. then that is different and even in that case there is no excuse to allow that home to burn down with pets inside it.
I don't care if the homeowner was previously billed and didn't or couldn't pay that should make no diffrence because they are already paid for through tax dollars. Those bastards could have easily sprayed that home and still get the extra blackmail money they want. All they had to do was have have papers already prepared for emergency services where the taxpayer homeowner who already pays for them could check off the boxes of what they want done in an emergency. They obviously didn't plan out their blackmail bill per service very well.
Instead of refusing to do their taxpayer paid jobs and purposely allowing pets to die, eventually it wiull be children, why not try to get more tax dollars to help cover any extra fees they want?
What the firefighters did was unforgivable. They are paid for by tax dollars that homeowner paid.
No, as has been explained multiple times, they were not.
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.
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.
