I agree. Fire departments are already in the public service sector. They're paid for by state, city, and federal taxes and obligated to help anyone regardless of finances. This is an act of douchebaggery at the least and extortion at the worst.

I myself live in a rural area and pay an additional fee which is entirely voluntary and noted as being a "DONATION" each time I pay. The fact of the matter is the man ALREADY paid when he paid his taxes. If he chose not to give an additional DONATION then that's his call.

This isn't a case of state farm not buying you a new car when you don't have insurance, this would be more like 911 hanging up on you when you're trapped in your overturned car with a spinal injury.

 

seems like a bad business to me.

 

I agree with the few posters here who questioned if there were lives involved would they have changed their position of not helping.

I would hope to God, that if lives were involved that they would not hesitate for a single second to save it.

 

Wow, that's pretty awful. 'Public servants' my eye.

 

I would say that this is messed up, but more and more people are screwing these services over by not paying when their lives are saved. Countless times I hear on the news how morons get stuck in flood areas, after they have been warned not to cross, go around the barricades and then call for help. Then they bitch that EMS is charging them $300.

 

Seems like the good natured thing to do was to atleast try and put the fire out anyway.

Dude would've felt bad & appreciative, probably would've paid them some money afterwards.
If not then the Firefighters would come off looking like better people.

The people of the land may get butthurt, but they'll understand in a way & get over it.
Would be like me bitching over people not leaving a tip. It's not fair, but I'll still keep tipping anyway.

 

This is ridiculous. They have to check a list before responding for a fire to see if people have paid a 75 dollar fee... I know times are tight and everybody's job-scared, but if I'd been one of those so-called firefighters, I'd be pretty damned ashamed of myself over this.

 

First let me say this...it's a horrible situation, and one that really shows that fucked up things can happen even with the best intentions. But, you really need know what's going on before you pass judgement on anyone. There's a lot of facts that have turned up that are getting glossed over in the shock and outrage, and need to find blame over this.

1: The area this is happening in DOES NOT HAVE a fire department. The fire department in question is in an entirely different municipality. Any taxes paid are not going to that fire department. From what I've gathered, this is about as close to free charity the department can give, and I doubt it's covering gas.
2: This is what has to happen when you allow services to be opt-in. If you allow someone to pay after the fact, more and more people are only going to pay after the fact. The end result is that service gets smaller and smaller amounts of funding because of it. Add in the problems and litigation that can drag out for after the fact payments (look at hospital payments as an example) and after the fact payments often dont end up as payments at all.
3: The fire department has already said that they would have gone anyways if there was any real life in danger. When the first call was taken in, they were told no one was in the house. It's important to note the house's owner has already stated he doesnt find any fault with the Fire Department.
4: If the fire fighters had fought the fire, because of the policies in place they'd likely be doing it on their own time, and thus doing it without the protection of insurance. Beyond the possible litigation from water damage caused by putting out the fire, if any of them were hurt/killed in the process they wouldnt have their medical benefits helping to recoup the cost.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the county for allowing you to opt-out. Quite frankly, I dont think you should be allowed to refuse to pay for such a service to begin with, exactly because of situations like this. It SHOULD have been part of their property taxes.

 

They could've been dicks and jammed a 'Talking Heads' song from their loud Firetruck mp3 player while watching.

 

Thats all fine and dandy but werent the firefighters already on scene??? If they were there, they were already "on their own time" why would they even waste it by showing up in the first place? Its more fucked up if they were there and were like no we just wasted tax payers money on gas to get here and watch the mother burn. I think the best solution would be for the locals to get organized and form a volunteer FD to take care of their own.

 

I sense bullshit on the excuse.

 

And what about health insurance? You need to pay a fee to insure you get life-saving surgery. According to you, that's a racket too, right?

Again, the fee for health insurance doesn't cover the cost of expensive surgery, but you need to pay that fee if you want to get treated for it. Since when is that a scam?

Rubbish. I'm sure the firefighters were there to make sure that the fire doesn't spread to neighbours' homes who have paid for fire coverage. But to save this man's burning house is a big-ass advertisement to others that you don't need to pay for firefighters to help you.

I'm pretty appalled, but not surprised, at most of you calling the fire department scum for letting this happen. It's typical and very cliché of us little people to hurl abuse at the government for all the shit that goes on, but you're incapable of seeing it their way. If any of you was actually a firefighter, you'd probably be defending their actions.

 

You guys really do need a better way of managing things like this, especially when it comes to enforcing and collecting payments. Just because someone didn't pay $75, they have now lost everything. And why? Because of a bunch of jobsworth cunts.
I mean, really; bill for $75 afterwards if you must, but don't destroy his life over it.
What an utter pile of bullshit. Hang your fucking heads, so-called fire "fighters". And all of you sitting there taking their side should do likewise. I'll be sure to laugh my ass off the next time bureaucratic bullshit fucks you over.

 

I think you just proved my point.  

 

I think you utterly missed mine.

 

You're crazy if you think the fire department is going to bill the guy for $75 AFTER they save his house. I know I'm repeating the same point, but what happens if you need emergency surgery worth thousands of dollars and you don't have health insurance? Do you think the hospital is going to charge you a meager fee to get insured afterwards? There's a reason people are exempt from using that tactic; it's called 'pre-existing condition'.

 

Then bill him whatever is appropriate. But destroying his life over it? That's taking "dick move" to a new level.
"It’s a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
Perhaps payment for services like this should be automatically taken, rather than giving people the chance to not pay it (or forget to. We don't know; maybe that is what happened). People never think something like this is going to happen to them.
What I'd like to know is what was going through the firemen's minds as they stood there and watched this guys home burn down. I doubt I could have lived with that.

 

You're taking far too narrow a view of the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say the firefighters do decide to save the man's house despite having no fire coverage. What do you think is going to happen then? Once the neighbours and everyone else in rural areas realize they don't need to pay firefighters to be serviced in case of an emergency, department funding will plummet, and it's the firemen who will be screwed over at the end of the day instead of the guy who didn't pay to get his house covered. Right now, the only question running through your mind is, "Why didn't the firefighters save this guy's house when they had the chance?" when the question you should be asking is, "Why didn't he pay for fire coverage in the first place?" If you can find a legitimate answer to that which vindicates his lack of fire coverage, then you can complain about the fire department being unfair.

 

I think that looking at it realistically, they should do $75 a year for protection, or $2,000 for on-call services to be billed after the fact. Most people would choose the least expensive route, but those who don't will probably pay afterward.

 

You'll notice my point was "if that's how they're going to fund it, that's the way it has to work"

I'm not necessarily endorsing the system. There are other ways of doing it. I believe this is similar to how the first fire services operated. At the time, it was better than nothing.