Didnt pay for firefighting service: house burns!

I can't believe that people are upset that a person who chose not to pay for coverage didn't get coverage. Seriously. This isn't even a little bit "shocking"... He chose not to pay a voluntary "tax", and found out that he probably should have paid it when he got "burned" by his decision. They ought to look into forming a Special District to ensure that everybody is forcibly covered, even when they don't want the coverage. That makes government "benign" and stuff.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The firemen - part of a municipal force - refused because of rules preventing such action.
Click to expand...

and

Until a few years ago, [Fulton's fire department] would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers.
Click to expand...


so one of you socialists tell me again why you're pissed at the fire department and not the city government?
Click to expand...

Because this was an Olbermann straw man of "this is what TEA Party governing would look like" and they are not going to get off message.
 
Damocles said:
Fire protection is a local government thing. Usually formed as Special Districts they collect property tax and fund their fire fighting force.

In this case it appears as if they chose to do it as a "community" where people would pay a fee to have that insurance, this person chose not to be covered. I'd support the right of stupid people to act stupidly every day. The fire department showed up to protect those who had paid for their insurance. Had there been lives in danger they would have responded appropriately (the house still would have burned).
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info, Damo.

It still strikes me as very strange way to operate though.
 
Damocles said:
I can't believe that people are upset that a person who chose not to pay for coverage didn't get coverage. Seriously. This isn't even a little bit "shocking"... He chose not to pay a voluntary "tax", and found out that he probably should have paid it when he got "burned" by his decision. They ought to look into forming a Special District to ensure that everybody is forcibly covered, even when they don't want the coverage. That makes government "benign" and stuff.
Click to expand...

A few years prior to this event the fire department would not even have shown up as the neighbor was not covered either; no one outside of the city was. The fact that they may want to revisit their government policy to consider this kind of circumstance to say- offer a fine in such an event is still an option.
 
Damocles said:
I can't believe that people are upset that a person who chose not to pay for coverage didn't get coverage. Seriously. This isn't even a little bit "shocking"... He chose not to pay a voluntary "tax", and found out that he probably should have paid it when he got "burned" by his decision. They ought to look into forming a Special District to ensure that everybody is forcibly covered, even when they don't want the coverage. That makes government "benign" and stuff.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty clinical way to look at it. If someone on a beach or in a plane is choking or has a medical emergency, and there is a doctor around, that doctor usually helps out, and doesn't wait to see if that person has insurance or can pay or has paid.

I can't really make sense of qualified people sitting there watching while someone's house goes down in flames. And didn't a neighboring house catch fire because of that?

What you're arguing makes sense at a certain level - certainly as a strict interpretation of the policy they had in the area - but on a basic level of humanitarianism, it's just weird, callous and unsettling (at best).
 
I'm a city person so I admit my lack of understanding and knowledge of unincorporated areas. What would be appealing to these people to move into such an area? Is it cheaper pricing to live where you don't have services such as a fire department and only pay an annual fee to receive it? I assume unincorporated areas would have deals with local school districts and so forth but would they pay the same taxes as those who live within that district?
 
Onceler said:
That's a pretty clinical way to look at it. If someone on a beach or in a plane is choking or has a medical emergency, and there is a doctor around, that doctor usually helps out, and doesn't wait to see if that person has insurance or can pay or has paid.

I can't really make sense of qualified people sitting there watching while someone's house goes down in flames. And didn't a neighboring house catch fire because of that?

What you're arguing makes sense at a certain level - certainly as a strict interpretation of the policy they had in the area - but on a basic level of humanitarianism, it's just weird, callous and unsettling (at best).
Click to expand...
The house wasn't "choking", had there been lives involved the fire fighters would have entered the house and done their best to save those lives. It was a structure, one that was uncovered purposefully by the choice of the person who owned it.

The reality is your "analogy" scenarios do not fit at all in this circumstance. All fire fighters are required to do their best to save lives, however they are under no requisite to risk themselves to save a structure that was purposefully uncovered any more than they have a requisite to risk their lives to attempt to put out a fire that is impossible to put out....

Let's say that this was a structure covered by choice of the owner. If they got there and no lives were at stake, the building was fully involved and there was no way to save it, they would stand by and ensure there was no spread. They wouldn't even try to put out the structure. Lives count, houses count if you can save them without injury to your crew.

This is more like your car getting struck by a falling tree limb when nobody is in it, then you expect the insurance company to do something about it even though you chose not to cover the car. Nobody's life was in danger. And they were there to ensure there was no spread that is why they were "watching"...

They did their jobs, ones they likely don't even get paid for...
 
This is funny thread.

Myself and Damocles have taken the position that the guy didn't pay the firefighting fee so he shouldn't be whining about it now how his house wasn't saved.

And Ice Dancer and Onceler have decided to take the position that its unfair and uncompassionate that the fire department didnt save the house.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

CK
 
Onceler said:
Do you get paid for every false analogy or strawman you throw out there...like some kind of royalty?

Bracing for the neg rep. Oh no...
Click to expand...

why in the world do you bother to post? all you do is lie about my positions and what i post, then you constantly whine about neg rep, despite your cliam you don't care

you're a pathetic liar onceler
 
Yurt said:
why in the world do you bother to post? all you do is lie about my positions and what i post, then you constantly whine about neg rep, despite your cliam you don't care

you're a pathetic liar onceler
Click to expand...

Onceler is one of those Democratic apologists....just as bad as a Republican apologist like Ice Dancer...

CK
 
Yurt said:
why in the world do you bother to post? all you do is lie about my positions and what i post, then you constantly whine about neg rep, despite your cliam you don't care

you're a pathetic liar onceler
Click to expand...

How was that a lie? Trying to compare this situation to a paramedic putting a helmet on a biker after the fact is brain-dead, at best.

I don't really whine about the neg reps; I just comment on them, because they're funny. They're getting longer & a little more unhinged, as well.

By their very nature, neg reps themselves are a form of whining, btw. Bet ya didn't know that...
 
Damocles said:
I can't believe that people are upset that a person who chose not to pay for coverage didn't get coverage. Seriously. This isn't even a little bit "shocking"... He chose not to pay a voluntary "tax", and found out that he probably should have paid it when he got "burned" by his decision. They ought to look into forming a Special District to ensure that everybody is forcibly covered, even when they don't want the coverage. That makes government "benign" and stuff.
Click to expand...

It's kind of like with water. It's just too cruel to make people pay extra for water during a shortage. The compassionate thing to do is throw them in jail if they water on the wrong day. :)
 
Damocles said:
The house wasn't "choking", had there been lives involved the fire fighters would have entered the house and done their best to save those lives. It was a structure, one that was uncovered purposefully by the choice of the person who owned it.

The reality is your "analogy" scenarios do not fit at all in this circumstance. All fire fighters are required to do their best to save lives, however they are under no requisite to risk themselves to save a structure that was purposefully uncovered any more than they have a requisite to risk their lives to attempt to put out a fire that is impossible to put out....

Let's say that this was a structure covered by choice of the owner. If they got there and no lives were at stake, the building was fully involved and there was no way to save it, they would stand by and ensure there was no spread. They wouldn't even try to put out the structure. Lives count, houses count if you can save them without injury to your crew.

This is more like your car getting struck by a falling tree limb when nobody is in it, then you expect the insurance company to do something about it even though you chose not to cover the car. Nobody's life was in danger. And they were there to ensure there was no spread that is why they were "watching"...

They did their jobs, ones they likely don't even get paid for...
Click to expand...

And by not paying for the service and taking a free ride, the fire fighters have less funding available for equipment, which increases their risks. But they are supposed to care about this assholes house, rush in and risk their lives when he did not care enough to pay a measly $75. Again, fuck him!

A stiff fine would probably be a better policy, but it's still his own damn fault.
 
charver said:
Not that i qualify here, but i'll blame the government if that's any help?

I don't really see why a State can't just organise fire cover for it's entire population. Does every State operate like this or does it vary?
Click to expand...

because a state is too big to organize and run services of that magnitude with any degree of efficiency. These are things best left to local governments like they are now.
 
Onceler said:
How was that a lie? Trying to compare this situation to a paramedic putting a helmet on a biker after the fact is brain-dead, at best.

I don't really whine about the neg reps; I just comment on them, because they're funny. They're getting longer & a little more unhinged, as well.

By their very nature, neg reps themselves are a form of whining, btw. Bet ya didn't know that...
Click to expand...

lol...still whining about neg reps...if you truly didn't care, you wouldn't ever ""comment"" on them, they clearly bother you and that makes me smile

you lied, its all you've done, you run around throwing out the term strawman, false analogy, yet you never actually discuss anything

boring
 
Yurt said:
lol...still whining about neg reps...if you truly didn't care, you wouldn't ever ""comment"" on them, they clearly bother you and that makes me smile

you lied, its all you've done, you run around throwing out the term strawman, false analogy, yet you never actually discuss anything

boring
Click to expand...

Nah - I have plenty of discussions with other posters on the board. I've tried w/ you a couple of times, but I don't think you really understand what the terms "discussion" & "debate" mean.

If something is a strawman or a false analogy, I'll call it for what it is, because it's a poor foundation for the "debate" you claim to seek.

You are right on one thing - the neg repping is traumatizing for me. I have actually shed a few tears in the past. Fortunately, I am beloved by the rest of the board, so your painful, life-changing neg reps are more than offset...

:)
 
Onceler said:
Nah - I have plenty of discussions with other posters on the board. I've tried w/ you a couple of times, but I don't think you really understand what the terms "discussion" & "debate" mean.

If something is a strawman or a false analogy, I'll call it for what it is, because it's a poor foundation for the "debate" you claim to seek.

You are right on one thing - the neg repping is traumatizing for me. I have actually shed a few tears in the past. Fortunately, I am beloved by the rest of the board, so your painful, life-changing neg reps are more than offset...

:)
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Onceler said:
Nah - I have plenty of discussions with other posters on the board. I've tried w/ you a couple of times, but I don't think you really understand what the terms "discussion" & "debate" mean.

If something is a strawman or a false analogy, I'll call it for what it is, because it's a poor foundation for the "debate" you claim to seek.

You are right on one thing - the neg repping is traumatizing for me. I have actually shed a few tears in the past. Fortunately, I am beloved by the rest of the board, so your painful, life-changing neg reps are more than offset...

:)
Click to expand...

your delusions are truly comical, thank you...i can post in a thread and like clockwork you will ad hom or make some stupid comment like - strawman - and yet even nigel (with the same post you claim is a strawman or whatever) can have an intelligent discussion with me....and that is the truth

you only got a pos rep back because you whined about it, had you not whined about my neg rep, you would not have recieved your pos rep....but i'm truly lmao that you ADMIT rep means something to you as pos rep obviously means the rest of the board loves you because they give you pos rep to counter my "unloved" neg rep LOOOOOL...good lord, its so easy, its almost boring with you because you self pwn all the time

keep up the false delusions onceler....:clink:
 
Yurt negative repped me because I LOL'd at Onceler's post. HE even wrote "LOL" on it. WTF?

Wow, he really hates Onceler. That's weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top