Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[goldcatt]

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.

They're probably gotten $500 from me over the years and we've never used it...yet. *knock on wood* But I don't mind, this area has a lot of elderly trying to live on social security and has been hit very hard with unemployment. Giving a little extra to make sure they have the funds to carry all the balances for folks who can only pay $5 or $10 a month on their bills doesn't kill us.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Kind of like the people who cheat on healthcare...."I never get sick....I don't need insurance"

Then when they get sick its off to the Emergency Room and make the taxpayer cough up the money

 

[Jeremy]

Glad no one was hurt.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Complete idiocy of public policy. Trucks still have to be there, firefighters still have to be there.......But they just sit and watch

 

[syrenn]

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.

$75 a year to have the fire department show up and $500 to put out the fire, sounds like deal to me ravi

 

[California Girl]

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.

So, the $75 is just the call out fee? Damn! But I would still argue that it costs more than $500 to turn out and put out a fire.

 

[Si modo]

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.

And those who don't subscribe, won't get that $500 fee.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Complete idiocy of public policy

Like I asked you before...you would prefer that the mayor just refused any service to the outlying areas altogether?

Outside of the city is not the Mayor's and his government's responsibility. I'd say he's being nice enough in offering an optional service as it is. He simply would like to generate some revenue in the process to pay for the services that would be rendered.

How is that so hard to reconcile?

 

[Si modo]

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.

So, the $75 is just the call out fee? Damn! But I would still argue that it costs more than $500 to turn out and put out a fire.

No. It's a subscription fee. You pay it, and the fire department will put out your fire if you live in a suscription area.

Don't pay it, and, well.....

 

[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.

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.

It's not, it's the County's or most likely the municipality's responsibility. But the municipality contracted with the City to make fire protection available by this method. Which is an idiotic method. The firefighters did their job, it's not their fault. But whoever negotiated fire coverage under these terms should be strung up by their toenails.

 

[Valerie]

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.

It's not that the city government should necessarily be responsible for serving residents outside of city limits, it's the town reps or county reps leadership and/or the state leadership should never have let it get down to that in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Complete idiocy of public policy

Like I asked you before...you would prefer that the mayor just refused any service to the outlying areas altogether?

Outside of the city is not the Mayor's and his government's responsibility. I'd say he's being nice enough in offering an optional service as it is. He simply would like to generate some revenue in the process to pay for the services that would be rendered.

How is that so hard to reconcile?

I think that would depend on the answer to this question: Does the city receive ANY tax benefit whatsoever from the county?

If the answer is no, then they are not obligated to offer their services.

If the answer is yes, then they are obligated.

 

[Paulie]

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.

It's not, it's the County's or most likely the municipality's responsibility. But the municipality contracted with the City to make fire protection available by this method. Which is an idiotic method. The firefighters did their job, it's not their fault. But whoever negotiated fire coverage under these terms should be strung up by their toenails.

My guess would be that the area where this guy lived does not have the means to generate enough funding to provide the service, and the city was nice enough to offer it at a fee.

It's not the city's fault, and it's not the county's fault.

If there isn't enough funding, there isn't enough funding.

The people in this man's area ought to just be thankful that there's a department in the area willing to cover them at all in these economic times where funding is so short as it is.

It's a small price to pay for the peace of mind, when you otherwise have no other option.

 

[Jeremy]

Reminds me of when my brothers car burnt up on a county road about 15 years ago. Three different departments pulled up and turned around because it turned out to be out of their district. The district it was in had its station about 20 miles away. But it turned out he was drag racing when it happened so we just laughed.

 

[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.

Kind of like the people who cheat on healthcare...."I never get sick....I don't need insurance"

Then when they get sick its off to the Emergency Room and make the taxpayer cough up the money

That is not an analogous situation, bub. Most of the cost shifting is to other insured via private insurance. Almost all government provided health care is done at a loss, with the cost shifted to the private sector. That's a bigger problem than some people using an emergency room.

 

[DiamondDave]

this thread is what happens when a young kid tries opining on issues he's not yet knowledgeable enough in to discuss.

On a related note, i declined to carry auto insurance on my car, and after getting into an accident i attempted to give an insurance company some money to get them to insure my damages...

What do you know...they told me no

bingo

 

[goldcatt]

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.

It's not, it's the County's or most likely the municipality's responsibility. But the municipality contracted with the City to make fire protection available by this method. Which is an idiotic method. The firefighters did their job, it's not their fault. But whoever negotiated fire coverage under these terms should be strung up by their toenails.

My guess would be that the area where this guy lived does not have the means to generate enough funding to provide the service, and the city was nice enough to offer it at a fee.

It's not the city's fault, and it's not the county's fault.

If there isn't enough funding, there isn't enough funding.

The people in this man's area ought to just be thankful that there's a department in the area willing to cover them at all in these economic times where funding is so short as it is.

It's a small price to pay for the peace of mind, when you otherwise have no other option.

I have no issue with that, or with requiring a fee. But the fee should be a mandatory tax and the coverage complete.

It's the same setup as outlying townships here that use State Troopers as their police protection. Yes, the State was kind enough to offer. Yes, the municipalities contract for those services and yes, they tax to pay that fee. The same goes for contracted fire protection services for those outlying townships from the larger towns and boroughs in the area. It's a negotiated contract of service for fee, with coverage mandatory and paid by tax. The whole concept of contracting for voluntary fee for service fire or police protection makes my head spin.

 

[Paulie]

This is an anecdotal wake-up call for those of you who seem to think that money is endless in this country and we can all get something for free.

There are areas where money is not endless, and budgets are not infinite.

A solution was offered, which may not be perfect in everyone's view, but it's a solution nonetheless. It's a hell of a lot better than the city simply telling the non-residents that they're shit out of luck.

 

[Paulie]

It's not, it's the County's or most likely the municipality's responsibility. But the municipality contracted with the City to make fire protection available by this method. Which is an idiotic method. The firefighters did their job, it's not their fault. But whoever negotiated fire coverage under these terms should be strung up by their toenails.

My guess would be that the area where this guy lived does not have the means to generate enough funding to provide the service, and the city was nice enough to offer it at a fee.

It's not the city's fault, and it's not the county's fault.

If there isn't enough funding, there isn't enough funding.

The people in this man's area ought to just be thankful that there's a department in the area willing to cover them at all in these economic times where funding is so short as it is.

It's a small price to pay for the peace of mind, when you otherwise have no other option.

I have no issue with that, or with requiring a fee. But the fee should be a mandatory tax and the coverage complete.

It's the same setup as outlying townships here that use State Troopers as their police protection. Yes, the State was kind enough to offer. Yes, the municipalities contract for those services and yes, they tax to pay that fee. The same goes for contracted fire protection services for those outlying townships from the larger towns and boroughs in the area. It's a negotiated contract of service for fee, with coverage mandatory and paid by tax. The whole concept of contracting for voluntary fee for service fire or police protection makes my head spin.

The only real difference though, is that there are some who choose not to pay.

I'd say that is a freedom I'm ok with.

But choose wisely and live with your choice.

 

[goldcatt]

This is an anecdotal wake-up call for those of you who seem to think that money is endless in this country and we can all get something for free.

There are areas where money is not endless, and budgets are not infinite.

A solution was offered, which may not be perfect in everyone's view, but it's a solution nonetheless. It's a hell of a lot better than the city simply telling the non-residents that they're shit out of luck.

It's the municipal entity on the receiving end who dropped the ball on this one. It's their responsibility to provide for public services by operation or contract. Sounds to me like outsourcing payment to the City fire department by voluntary subscription service was the easy way out for them rather than managing a tax-based system through their own offices. Some people just don't give a shit.