I'm merely advocating the distilled brand of capitalism that some people in this thread apparently are, one that's utterly divorced from all moral and ethical considerations and where all that matters is the fine print and the bottom dollar. It's amazing how you speak of this mindset with such reverence and say "socialism" like it was a four-letter-word. Here's something to consider: unless exactly who did and didn't pay the firefighter's fee is a matter of public record, the fire department could've easily saved this guy's house and then quietly billed him later, with no one in the community being any wiser about him being a "freeloader". Also, I live in Canada, where we actually have a health care system that isn't a joke.
It sounds more like attacking fellow board members than it does stating your opinion about a situation. And don't confuse free health care with quality healthcare. The lack of competitive compensation forces the good doctors to go somewhere else. But I digress.
OMG. Ok here is the picture. Your a fireman and you get the call for the fire at this guys house. While en route you get all his info and see that the fee isn't paid blah blah blah. You get to the scene and take in the situation. There isn't any one in the house and no one in immediate danger. And you know that if you break the law and standards set by the local laws and jurisdiction and put this guys house out your more than likely going to lose your job and may be even have hella fine slapped on you. Just because this guy either A. Knowingly neglected to pay or B. Is a plum absent minded idiot. Would you risk it? Plain and simple. Yes or No. Because I wouldn't. As Firemen is wasn't their job to make sure he paid all the necessary fee's and what not so they could in turn do their actual one. And for people saying " Well in my area this wouldn't fly". Well of course not your local laws and guidelines are more than likely different. Even as a United Nation we are all still separated in a way. But when it comes down to it the law is the law period. And I mean come on who honestly would live some where and not pay a fee such this is it was required to have Fire protection? This guy knew the laws and got caught with his pants down.
*ahem* The roof. The roof is on fire! We don't need no water, let tha motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker BURN!
Except that they didnt. None of the tax money that county collects went to the fire department in question, it's a different jurisdiction. They voted AGAINST doing so, going for this stupid 'fee' crap. They did the equivalent of deciding 'We dont need a police department, we'll just rent out the neighboring towns'. You're asking them to put out fires for an area they arent getting any extra funding for. It's why this SHOULD be getting paid for out of taxes. You cant send money you dont have. It doesnt bring insurance issues into play either, and no one has the possibility of losing their job for giving charity. Again, why are people so quick to pin the blame on the firefighters? They have little to no choice in this matter. If they're told by their superiors 'no', they cant do so without putting their jobs and safety on the line. If they're told 'no' and do it anyways, they could get fired, and their medical/life insurance wouldnt kick in if they get injured or killed. Judge them from the relative safety of your chair if you want, but I'm not going to. Pin the blame on those who deserve it, the people insisting on the 'optional fee' policy. Most of it comes from the county or state. It's like the Police department in many areas. In this case, most of it would be coming from the county. You're asking them to handle fires in an area that isnt paying for it, basically out of pocket. Let me continue the police analogy some. If your town decided it didnt want to fund a local police department anymore, and would just let the town next door handle it, do you think that police department has the moral obligation to police your town? Most of the people are saying something to the effect of 'The system is stupid, but if they insist on running it this way, it needs to be handled this way'. You can be sympathetic while pragmatic at the same time. I can be sympathetic to the flood victim who forgot to renew his flood insurance too, but I recognise it's not the insurance companies fault. As is, the health care plan doesnt quite apply. The fire department was going to go in if any life was at stake (Probably because Good Samaritan laws apply then) and lives werent on the line in this situation. And quite honestly, the health care issue is related to this exact thing too. Many hospitals ARENT recouping their losses from non insurance emergency situations, and they'll only handle emergency life threatening situations. This is causing the general efficiency of emergency clinics to go down as they run out of the funds they need to keep them properly running.
Yeah, if!!! Although police officers aren't always on the good side of the news one does here time to time about an off duty officer doing something heroic. Other firefighters used helicopters and risk their own lives to rescue dogs during heavy rains. That did happens a while ago in the L.A river. Comparing the best use of resources, which case had more benefits for putting "their jobs and safety" on the line? There have been many people in American history that stood up for what they think is right and no sit idle because policy or danger. If you don't want to be a part of that group, that your business. But if I had the title, I'll play the part.
My city does not fund local police. They have a contract with the county to keep sheriff officers around though. We also do not have to pay a fee in order to have the police respond here (because that would be an impractical and awful way to use a public good). The city made it their responsibility to cover the area, so they have the obligation to protect it from fire. There is no such thing as a selective public good. The military cant exclude your house from national defense if you dont pay your federal taxes. In the same way, the fire department cannot exclude your house if you did not pay your "service fee".
Not really. For me, it's pretty clear cut. The firefighters had the moral and ethical obligation to save this guy's house. They also had the legal and financial obligation to let it burn to the ground. They chose to go with the latter. To me, it's more than a little messed up when someone has to consult a list in order to decide whether someone deserves their help or not. And for what? A few dollars and some bureaucratic red tape. And, as I said before, unless the homeowner happened to go around town bragging about how he never paid those 75 bucks or a list of non-payers are available to the general public, I see no reason why they couldn't have saved his house and then quietly billed him later.
When he first called the fire dept they told him because he had failed to pay the $75 they could do nothing for him. Only after his neighbor who had paid called because he feared the fire might spread to his property did they respond. That is all documented. The fire apparently started in a fire drum and spread from there taking approx. 2 hours to reach the house, during which time the water hose proved ineffectual. Once the firefighters were on site at his neighbors he begged them to put out his house which was again refused. This all sucks as many folks have stated. Should things have gone differently? Yes on multiple fronts. My question is if it took that friggin long for the fire to spread why the hell didn't he go into town and buy several of the largest size extinguishers he could and maybe see if anyone else could to? From everything I've read he had the time and where-with-all.
Really???? I grew up in Canada and my uncle died of pneumonia in an ICU! Shitty staff and no fucking motivation to do anything to help people and on top of this everyone that is really sick is on the fing waiting list system. Yeah Canada's awesome its only great because unmotivated degenerates love the free side of things and now its leached its way into the US. You know the plus side to being able to choose your own healthcare and pay for it? Money makes sure your taken care of because the Governments wont, back to this case money should have nothing to do with being protected by the FD, you pay federal and state taxes regardless of where you live and sometimes higher city taxes depending on where you live bottom line citizens should be covered.
Certain counties in California are considering charging a fee (around $100) for each time a resident dials 911. You can pay an annual fee of I think $40 for unlimited 911 calls. CA is in such a shithole financially that they need to start charging for everything. Crazy. I guess they could have done the same in this case. Pay an annual fee of $75 for your house to be protected or if you choose pay-per-visit then when your house is burning down and the firefighters need to come out then it's $300 (arbitrary number but you can probably charge whatever it cost to have the FD come out) for each visit or something like that. If they are going to charge extra for fire service then at least give the guy that option of paying for the visit instead of watching the house burn down. Actually don't even make it an option of paying or not, later or not. Once a resident moves in, give the resident a notice that fire service would be $75 annually or if you wish not to pay the annual fee then if the fire department has to come out to your house then it'll be $300 for each visit. That way if the FD does need to come out they will still do so and the resident will be billed $300.
I would help. When I was a kid I always wanted to either be a cop or a firefighter. It wasn't until I got older and found out being a cop wasn't the same as being Batman so I lost interest a bit but even today I still kinda want to be a firefighter. Especially after hearing this story. I'd become a firefighter, i'd save that guys house and his pets and I might lose my job. But i'd feel really good about it. I can't believe how many big bad /b/tards there are in this thread. It's kinda scary. And Draven, buddy. I agree with everything you've said in this thread. Normally we're at odds about silly TF movie stuff but i'm 100% behind you on this.
why they didnt just put it out and send a bill to him is beyond me. its just sad we put pretty much put money first before the well being of anyone. just to let it burn like that and do nothing, regardless if he didnt pay or whatever is just so inhuman. you know damn well if it was anyone's home, even a firefighter or cop, and that happened to them, they would be pissed. no one would just sit there and be like, doh i forgot to pay, oh well. also if he didnt pay, and say his neighbors to the left and right did, how do you control that? do they wait for the fire to hit the other houses and only try to keep those fires out? I dont think you could control the houses on the side without putting the original house on fire out. So in a sense had I paid the fee, and the firefighters cant put my fire out because the other house that did not will continue to burn which keeps my house on fire, what the hell then? I paid my fee for the service the firefighters can not handle or commit to.
Lets say they put the fire out anyway and charge him a 5k+ fee. What happens when he still doesn't pay it?
