Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Paulie]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

 

[Madeline]

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.

You are missing my point. There is no way to eliminate the middleman. The city (or county) is a necessary party to the festivities, so paying via taxation is the most reasonable (I would argue the only reasonable) funding method.

 

[WillowTree]

Well, color me blue but doesn't it seem strange to you younglefty that the dude couldn't AFFORD $75/year but now, can suddenly pay "whatever it takes"?

 

[Conspiracist]

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?

A far leftwing stupid question.

 

[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.

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.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

page 4

 

[Si modo]

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.

You are missing my point. There is no way to eliminate the middleman. The city (or county) is a necessary party to the festivities, so paying via taxation is the most reasonable (I would argue the only reasonable) funding method.

Your point is irrelevant, so of course I'm missing it.

The county residents do not live in the city. Again, duh.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Exactly...Terrible leadership, terrible public policy.

 

[Conspiracist]

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.

You are missing my point. There is no way to eliminate the middleman. The city (or county) is a necessary party to the festivities, so paying via taxation is the most reasonable (I would argue the only reasonable) funding method.

I actually like that $75 voluntary pay. I figured the homeowner's insurance would require someone like that to pay.

 

[boedicca]

Here's the money shot:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

The homeowner thought he could cheat the system and get the benefits without paying.

That's the delusional world view of a pure parasite.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

You're probably right, it's a huge liability issue. But then they're performing their duty without payment, which strains the resources. Making coverage mandatory and levying a tax to pay for it covers all the bases. The taxes I pay for "911" service are flat fees and come out to about $69/year. I choose to pay an additional $50 a year to fund the ambulance service - and if I or anyone in my my family were to need it we wouldn't be charged for the call. Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Exactly...Terrible leadership, terrible public policy.

The fee appears to be for county residents whose homes are outside of the city limits. I don't see why it is the city's government's responsibility to provide free services for non-residents.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Damn that pesky personal responsibility shit, always biting ya in the ass when you least expect it.

 

[syrenn]

Well, color me blue but doesn't it seem strange to you younglefty that the dude couldn't AFFORD $75/year but now, can suddenly pay "whatever it takes"?

You dont need to yell at the poor kid ya know Willow.

 

[Paulie]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

You're probably right, it's a huge liability issue. But then they're performing their duty without payment, which strains the resources. Making coverage mandatory and levying a tax to pay for it covers all the bases. The taxes I pay for "911" service are flat fees and come out to about $69/year. I choose to pay an additional $50 a year to fund the ambulance service - and if I or anyone in my my family were to need it we wouldn't be charged for the call. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Besides the lawsuits in such a case, can you imagine the backlash on the fire department?

People would be out for BLOOD in a situation like that.

My area sounds around the same as yours pretty much. I'm not sure about ambulance though. As far as I know, you pay $500 for an ambulance ride and I'm not sure there's insurance for it or not.

 

[Jeremy]

I bet that fire district sees a bump in revenue from new customers.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

So.....regardless of whether the person has paid or not, they still have to roll out the trucks to make sure nobody is in danger and then just sit and watch it burn.

The volunteer firefighters I know would hate that policy.

 

[California Girl]

Here's the money shot:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

The homeowner thought he could cheat the system and get the benefits without paying.

That's the delusional world view of a pure parasite.

A democrat then.

 

[boedicca]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

So.....regardless of whether the person has paid or not, they still have to roll out the trucks to make sure nobody is in danger and then just sit and watch it burn.

The volunteer firefighters I know would hate that policy.

They were there to protect the homeowners who had paid. They did keep the fire from turning into a neighborhood conflagration.

 

[Ravi]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

So.....regardless of whether the person has paid or not, they still have to roll out the trucks to make sure nobody is in danger and then just sit and watch it burn.

The volunteer firefighters I know would hate that policy.

I would wager that 99.9% of all firefighters would.

Funny. They charge people the $500 even if they paid the $75.

 

[Paulie]

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?

I guarantee you that no department is going to watch someone burn to death inside the house.

Regardless of "policy", lawsuits would be monumental, not to mention public relations backlashes.

So.....regardless of whether the person has paid or not, they still have to roll out the trucks to make sure nobody is in danger and then just sit and watch it burn.

The volunteer firefighters I know would hate that policy.

Yeah, because there are other houses in the area who have PAID for the service.

The fire department needs to be there to make sure, at a bare minimum, that there's no collateral damage to paying members, or safety concerns otherwise.