Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[USAMomma]

Pretty sad state of affairs. I thought part of our taxes went to pay for these services?

Oh, yeah that's right, it gets put into politicians pockets...

 

[Si modo]

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

...

No shit.

That's why they are asked to pay for the service. They don't pay, no service. If their house catches fire, too bad for them and their cheap decision.

....

In short, this is a monumentally stupid way to approach local government.

Then move there and vote for change. The county residents want it this way, otherwise they would vote to have such a free choice taken from them.

But, you don't live in that county, so your opinion of how they should run their county is insignificant.

 

[Spoonman]

Pretty sad state of affairs. I thought part of our taxes went to pay for these services?

Oh, yeah that's right, it gets put into politicians pockets...

USA Momma when did you join here?

 

[Paulie]

The very concept of pay as you go fire protection is laughable

You'd prefer that the Mayor instead says he's not offering any service AT ALL to the outlying areas with no fire department coverage?

 

[Si modo]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

A lot of people only have money for bills, food, and their health expenses (if that much).. I know a ton of people who couldn't spare an extra $75 a year. Everyone doesn't have money running out their ears.

Again, then they should not be homeowners if they cannot afford to protect their home. They can rent.

If the service was not charged for, then they would be taxed. Likely a higher rate than the $75. They can't afford their taxes, then their home is taken.

Either way, they need to move if they cannot afford to protect their home.

 

[Spoonman]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

A lot of people only have money for bills, food, and their health expenses (if that much).. I know a ton of people who couldn't spare an extra $75 a year. Everyone doesn't have money running out their ears.

Then how can Obama make healthcare coverage mandatory?

 

[California Girl]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

A lot of people only have money for bills, food, and their health expenses (if that much).. I know a ton of people who couldn't spare an extra $75 a year. Everyone doesn't have money running out their ears.

Right so who should be paying for the service? The rich? Good grief, if he wanted it covered in taxes, he is welcome to live in an area where that happens. He chose to live somewhere where they are offered an option - pay or not. He chose not to and he got screwed. Unlucky.

 

[Paulie]

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

A lot of people only have money for bills, food, and their health expenses (if that much).. I know a ton of people who couldn't spare an extra $75 a year. Everyone doesn't have money running out their ears.

Then how can Obama make healthcare coverage mandatory?

He's ok if it's TAXES that are taking that $75 from you.

 

[syrenn]

As a home owner, if i want fire insurgence i PAY for it. I don't have to carry fire insurgence, its my choice to take the risk or not. Its voluntary and my choice. The chances are i will never need fire insurance but i am not willing to take that chance.

I feel badly this guys house burned, but he took the chance he would never need the service. He gambled and LOST. Sorry you get what you pay for and he got what he paid for. No fire protection.

I am sure the fire department was there to protect the neighbors homes who may have paid for the service.

 

[USAMomma]

Then how can Obama make healthcare coverage mandatory?

He got paid by the health insurance industry since people were less and less likely to be able to pay for health insurance due to higher and higher costs, loss of jobs or saw what a rip off the system was becoming so opted out of buying into the health insurance.

So, the Obama people thought up a way to make it mandatory or they would levy fines.

Hmmm..makes me wonder what will happen to our jails when people become less and less able to pay the fines? And what of those who truly cannot afford the insurance at all? I have heard that there will be tax rebates for those who qualify, but what if they make just enough to cover their basic living expenses but not enough left over for the insurance? The whole thing is a mess imho

 

[goldcatt]

The very concept of pay as you go fire protection is laughable

It is laughable. And the genius who put the policy in place and the rest of the geniuses who left it there for 20 years should all be run out of town on a rail. But the fact remains that there was no legal obligation for the firefighters to put out that fire until and unless it spread to a structure whose owner paid the fee - no matter how many houses or businesses went up in flames in between. Dumb, dumb, dumb....but it wasn't their decision.

I'm in a rural area where these types of services usually cover more than one municipality. Firefighters are all volunteer, the department is funded by a municipal 911 payroll tax, County tax and voluntary donations. The municipal ambulance and paramedic service has annual membership fees you can pay voluntarily, but they'll still show up if you don't. You just get billed full price if you aren't a member. Municipalities that can't afford their own police departments rely on State Troopers to respond to calls and pay a fee to the State for coverage, again out of taxes. Nobody goes without coverage, period. It's a public safety issue. That these morons making policy fail to grasp the public safety aspect of making emergency services voluntary is beyond me.

 

[USAMomma]

Sorry do not know why my reply posted twice trying to delete it...

 

[Ravi]

So...the firefighters charge the homeowner $500 for putting out a fire. The $75 is to cover the deadbeats that don't end up paying.

If the guy had offered $500 cash, they should have performed the service.

But it is up to the discretion of the person in charge as to wether the fire is put out or not.



Pretty shameful, IMO.

 

[rightwinger]

The very concept of pay as you go fire protection is laughable

It is laughable. And the genius who put the policy in place and the rest of the geniuses who left it there for 20 years should all be run out of town on a rail. But the fact remains that there was no legal obligation for the firefighters to put out that fire until and unless it spread to a structure whose owner paid the fee - no matter how many houses or businesses went up in flames in between. Dumb, dumb, dumb....but it wasn't their decision.

I'm in a rural area where these types of services usually cover more than one municipality. Firefighters are all volunteer, the department is funded by a municipal 911 payroll tax, County tax and voluntary donations. The municipal ambulance and paramedic service has annual membership fees you can pay voluntarily, but they'll still show up if you don't. You just get billed full price if you aren't a member. Municipalities that can't afford their own police departments rely on State Troopers to respond to calls and pay a fee to the State for coverage, again out of taxes. Nobody goes without coverage, period. It's a public safety issue. That these morons making policy fail to grasp the public safety aspect of making emergency services voluntary is beyond me.

These pay as you go towns ignore the basic reason for having a fire department....to save lives

What is their response if someone is inside the burning house? Too bad for you?

 

[Si modo]

So...the firefighters charge the homeowner $500 for putting out a fire. The $75 is to cover the deadbeats that don't end up paying.

If the guy had offered $500 cash, they should have performed the service.

But it is up to the discretion of the person in charge as to wether the fire is put out or not.



Pretty shameful, IMO.

Cool. Then, as one who pays the $75 per year, I choose to stop paying that fee.

Now, the fire department is underfunded.

How cool is that! Woohoo!

 

[Madeline]

If the fire department were paid with taxes it would cost $750 instead of $75

Why?

Because it is paid directly to the provider without government functionaires needing to fuck up allocations in the process.

Duh, Madeline.

Whose name is on the firemen's paychecks? How are the fire trucks titled? Who owns the firehouses? The city...*duh*. This is just not a service that lends itself to a fee-based funding system, Si.

 

[California Girl]

So...the firefighters charge the homeowner $500 for putting out a fire. The $75 is to cover the deadbeats that don't end up paying.

If the guy had offered $500 cash, they should have performed the service.

But it is up to the discretion of the person in charge as to wether the fire is put out or not.



Pretty shameful, IMO.

Where did the figure of $500 come from?

Because it seems to me that it would cost considerably more than $500 to put out the average house fire.

 

[USAMomma]

Did he live there before a fee was required for emergency services such as fire protection?

If he moved there knowing a fee was required then he should have thought about this prior to moving in if he did not want to pay or could not afford it.

 

[Si modo]

Why?

Because it is paid directly to the provider without government functionaires needing to fuck up allocations in the process.

Duh, Madeline.

Whose name is on the firemen's paychecks? How are the fire trucks titled? Who owns the firehouses? The city...*duh*. This is just not a service that lends itself to a fee-based funding system, Si.

WTH are you smoking?

Anyone who thinks having a middleman does not increase cost is not thinking.

 

[California Girl]

Why?

Because it is paid directly to the provider without government functionaires needing to fuck up allocations in the process.

Duh, Madeline.

Whose name is on the firemen's paychecks? How are the fire trucks titled? Who owns the firehouses? The city...*duh*. This is just not a service that lends itself to a fee-based funding system, Si.

I doubt many would disagree that it's a stupid set up, Mad. But the facts remain as they are. He chose not to pay the $75. Free choice.