Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Jon]

You know.......how many people here have forgotten to pay a bill that only comes once a year and is less than a hundred bucks?

Many of us have. Only instead of getting a late notice, they watched his house burn down.

They should have let him pay the 75 bucks and saved his house.

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

You know.......how many people here have forgotten to pay a bill that only comes once a year and is less than a hundred bucks?

Many of us have. Only instead of getting a late notice, they watched his house burn down.

They should have let him pay the 75 bucks and saved his house.

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

Oh, no. They're supposed to provide it until you have an outage. Then you claim you "forgot", pay your 75 bucks, and forget the next time they send you a bill.

 

[mudwhistle]

You know.......how many people here have forgotten to pay a bill that only comes once a year and is less than a hundred bucks?

Many of us have. Only instead of getting a late notice, they watched his house burn down.

They should have let him pay the 75 bucks and saved his house.

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

Oh, no. They're supposed to provide it until you have an outage. Then you claim you "forgot", pay your 75 bucks, and forget the next time they send you a bill.

Now you're thinking like a Liberal.

 

[Care4all]

You know.......how many people here have forgotten to pay a bill that only comes once a year and is less than a hundred bucks?

Many of us have. Only instead of getting a late notice, they watched his house burn down.

They should have let him pay the 75 bucks and saved his house.

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the south, if you don't pay it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

 

[Jon]

You know.......how many people here have forgotten to pay a bill that only comes once a year and is less than a hundred bucks?

Many of us have. Only instead of getting a late notice, they watched his house burn down.

They should have let him pay the 75 bucks and saved his house.

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the soth, if you don't pai it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

Oh, no. They're supposed to provide it until you have an outage. Then you claim you "forgot", pay your 75 bucks, and forget the next time they send you a bill.

Now you're thinking like a Liberal.

What did I do to deserve an insult like that?

 

[bodecea]

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the soth, if you don't pai it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

So, standing by and letting his house burn is an object lesson to everyone else. Pay up or else we'll have another weinie roast!

 

[Jon]

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the soth, if you don't pai it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

So, standing by and letting his house burn is an object lesson to everyone else. Pay up or else we'll have another weinie roast!

Precisely. It sets a precedent. If one person can get coverage without paying, everyone will stop paying. If everyone stops paying, no one gets coverage. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Intense]

He didn't forget. He chose not to and assumed he would get coverage.

If I forget to pay my electric bill, my electricity gets shut off. Is the electric company required to provide me service? No. I could die as a result of not having this service, but they are not entitled to provide it to me in spite of that.

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the soth, if you don't pai it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

Charge an extra fee for being negligent. 2X, 3X, 5X, 10X, or a discounted fee for paying on time. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Foxfyre]

not up here in the winter...they won't pull the plug if you don't pay your bill....

and even in the soth, if you don't pai it, they eventually shut you down, but the second you pay the electric bill, they start you up again....they don't permanently not provide you with electricity....

they did not allow this man to pay late?

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

Charge an extra fee for being negligent. 2X, 3X, 5X, 10X, or a discounted fee for paying on time. Stupid is as stupid does.

That only works if a few folks are late, errant, or otherwise don't pay their dues. But when you start giving people the service whether they are late or not, that is a huge invitation and temptation for everybody to take that option. That would be true of any insurance coverage in the world. It's sort of like buying an extended warranty for your computer or MP3 player or car or something. Most of us don't. If something does go wrong, we wish we had but we can't go back and buy the service AFTER we need it.

If enought people don't buy the service until they need it, pretty soon there will be no service at all.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

If they allowed him to pay on the spot, then everyone would choose that option. The fire department would not have adequate funding and would be unable to provide anyone with coverage.

Charge an extra fee for being negligent. 2X, 3X, 5X, 10X, or a discounted fee for paying on time. Stupid is as stupid does.

That only works if a few folks are late, errant, or otherwise don't pay their dues. But when you start giving people the service whether they are late or not, that is a huge invitation and temptation for everybody to take that option. That would be true of any insurance coverage in the world. It's sort of like buying an extended warranty for your computer or MP3 player or car or something. Most of us don't. If something does go wrong, we wish we had but we can't go back and buy the service AFTER we need it.

If enought people don't buy the service until they need it, pretty soon there will be no service at all.

This is absolutely correct. Even if you offered 10,000 X the charge when you needed the service, it does absolutely no good if they don't have the money up front to purchase the trucks, equipment, fuel or training. If there is no fire apparatus and firefighters in place when your house starts burning, it wouldn't matter if you could pay $100 million, your property is going up in smoke.

 

[KissMy]

This is absolutely correct. Even if you offered 10,000 X the charge when you needed the service, it does absolutely no good if they don't have the money up front to purchase the trucks, equipment, fuel or training. If there is no fire apparatus and firefighters in place when your house starts burning, it wouldn't matter if you could pay $100 million, your property is going up in smoke.

This is not entirely correct. On average 1 out of 200 houses catch fire every year. If all 200 homeowners paid their $75 that would amount to $15,000 for all those homes that would likely only generate 1 fire call.

Taken to extreme, if none of the 200 homeowners paid their $75 & the one who had the fire had to pay $15,000. The fire department would still have the same amount at the end of the day.

It is not likely that all 200 homeowners would fail to pay if they knew the department would put out fires without receiving the $75 payment but would charge them $15,000. Most would still pay to be sure they would not get hit with a 200 times higher charge. That means the fire department would make a lot more money than if everyone paid the $75 & could pay off any loan they would have needed to cover the non payers or put up to buy the equipment from the start.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

This is absolutely correct. Even if you offered 10,000 X the charge when you needed the service, it does absolutely no good if they don't have the money up front to purchase the trucks, equipment, fuel or training. If there is no fire apparatus and firefighters in place when your house starts burning, it wouldn't matter if you could pay $100 million, your property is going up in smoke.

This is not entirely correct. On average 1 out of 200 houses catch fire every year. If all 200 homeowners paid their $75 that would amount to $15,000 for all those homes that would likely only generate 1 fire call.

Taken to extreme, if none of the 200 homeowners paid their $75 & the one who had the fire had to pay $15,000. The fire department would still have the same amount at the end of the day.

It is not likely that all 200 homeowners would fail to pay if they knew the department would put out fires without receiving the $75 payment but would charge them $15,000. Most would still pay to be sure they would not get hit with a 200 times higher charge. That means the fire department would make a lot more money than if everyone paid the $75 & could pay off any loan they would have needed to cover the non payers or put up to buy the equipment from the start.

Do you really think 15K is enough to equip and maintain fire apparatus for an entire county for a year? I have 5 pieces of heavy equipment for a 30 acre job site, and I pay much more than 15K per year for fuel and maintenance. Then factor in training and H&W, and you've left 15,000 far behind.

All in all, $75.00 per home per year is more than fair to provide coverage for an unincorporated county. If they were left to fund it themselves, if would have a much higher fee per home. And they would be on the hook for maintenance and utilities for the buildings the trucks were parked in.

 

[R.C. Christian]

81 pages, wow. For real Americans or simply people with decency that transcends petty capitalism there shouldn't be a question.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is absolutely correct. Even if you offered 10,000 X the charge when you needed the service, it does absolutely no good if they don't have the money up front to purchase the trucks, equipment, fuel or training. If there is no fire apparatus and firefighters in place when your house starts burning, it wouldn't matter if you could pay $100 million, your property is going up in smoke.

This is not entirely correct. On average 1 out of 200 houses catch fire every year. If all 200 homeowners paid their $75 that would amount to $15,000 for all those homes that would likely only generate 1 fire call.

Taken to extreme, if none of the 200 homeowners paid their $75 & the one who had the fire had to pay $15,000. The fire department would still have the same amount at the end of the day.

It is not likely that all 200 homeowners would fail to pay if they knew the department would put out fires without receiving the $75 payment but would charge them $15,000. Most would still pay to be sure they would not get hit with a 200 times higher charge. That means the fire department would make a lot more money than if everyone paid the $75 & could pay off any loan they would have needed to cover the non payers or put up to buy the equipment from the start.

Do you really think 15K is enough to equip and maintain fire apparatus for an entire county for a year? I have 5 pieces of heavy equipment for a 30 acre job site, and I pay much more than 15K per year for fuel and maintenance. Then factor in training and H&W, and you've left 15,000 far behind.

All in all, $75.00 per home per year is more than fair to provide coverage for an unincorporated county. If they were left to fund it themselves, if would have a much higher fee per home. And they would be on the hook for maintenance and utilities for the buildings the trucks were parked in.

And that is the devil in the details right there.

The folks in the city don't have an option whether to pay or not for fire service. Taxes are applied to every household to cover fire service, police protection, etc. etc. etc. They pay their taxes or the city or county takes the house and sells it for whatever they can get. The homeowner does get whatever is left over after the taxes are retrieved IF there is anything left over.

But people who don't buy insurance on purpose have nobody to blame but themselves if they need the insurance and don't have it. The principle behind this incident with the fire deparment may seem cruel and unconscionable to tender hearted people. I don't know if I could stand by and not try to put out the fire if I was one of those firemen. But the hard truth is, if people get the service whether or not they choose to pay, it won't be long before nobody has any service. Somebody who wanted $75 more than they wanted the insurance is not likely to have $15,000 to pay for the service after the fact, especially when they are facing serious home repairs due to the fire.

 

[Jon]

81 pages, wow. For real Americans or simply people with decency that transcends petty capitalism their shouldn't be a question.

Or, for people who believe in getting something for nothing. Of course these days, those people seem to outweigh those of us who believe in acting responsibly and not expecting others to take care of us.

 

[KissMy]

This is not entirely correct. On average 1 out of 200 houses catch fire every year. If all 200 homeowners paid their $75 that would amount to $15,000 for all those homes that would likely only generate 1 fire call.

Taken to extreme, if none of the 200 homeowners paid their $75 & the one who had the fire had to pay $15,000. The fire department would still have the same amount at the end of the day.

It is not likely that all 200 homeowners would fail to pay if they knew the department would put out fires without receiving the $75 payment but would charge them $15,000. Most would still pay to be sure they would not get hit with a 200 times higher charge. That means the fire department would make a lot more money than if everyone paid the $75 & could pay off any loan they would have needed to cover the non payers or put up to buy the equipment from the start.

Do you really think 15K is enough to equip and maintain fire apparatus for an entire county for a year? I have 5 pieces of heavy equipment for a 30 acre job site, and I pay much more than 15K per year for fuel and maintenance. Then factor in training and H&W, and you've left 15,000 far behind.

All in all, $75.00 per home per year is more than fair to provide coverage for an unincorporated county. If they were left to fund it themselves, if would have a much higher fee per home. And they would be on the hook for maintenance and utilities for the buildings the trucks were parked in.

And that is the devil in the details right there.

The folks in the city don't have an option whether to pay or not for fire service. Taxes are applied to every household to cover fire service, police protection, etc. etc. etc. They pay their taxes or the city or county takes the house and sells it for whatever they can get. The homeowner does get whatever is left over after the taxes are retrieved IF there is anything left over.

But people who don't buy insurance on purpose have nobody to blame but themselves if they need the insurance and don't have it. The principle behind this incident with the fire deparment may seem cruel and unconscionable to tender hearted people. I don't know if I could stand by and not try to put out the fire if I was one of those firemen. But the hard truth is, if people get the service whether or not they choose to pay, it won't be long before nobody has any service. Somebody who wanted $75 more than they wanted the insurance is not likely to have $15,000 to pay for the service after the fact, especially when they are facing serious home repairs due to the fire.

Most homeowners including this one have insurance that would be happy to pay that $15,000 vs paying off the entire home & contents. If they don't pay, put a lean on the property.

As far as $15k not being enough per fire on 1 in 200 homes. (I don't know how many homes are in the county. The average house fire is 1 in 200) It is more than they are collecting if they all pay $75. The town will make far more with that $15k surcharge than they will watching houses burn & losing residents. It is a simple business decision that they screwed up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you really think 15K is enough to equip and maintain fire apparatus for an entire county for a year? I have 5 pieces of heavy equipment for a 30 acre job site, and I pay much more than 15K per year for fuel and maintenance. Then factor in training and H&W, and you've left 15,000 far behind.

All in all, $75.00 per home per year is more than fair to provide coverage for an unincorporated county. If they were left to fund it themselves, if would have a much higher fee per home. And they would be on the hook for maintenance and utilities for the buildings the trucks were parked in.

And that is the devil in the details right there.

The folks in the city don't have an option whether to pay or not for fire service. Taxes are applied to every household to cover fire service, police protection, etc. etc. etc. They pay their taxes or the city or county takes the house and sells it for whatever they can get. The homeowner does get whatever is left over after the taxes are retrieved IF there is anything left over.

But people who don't buy insurance on purpose have nobody to blame but themselves if they need the insurance and don't have it. The principle behind this incident with the fire deparment may seem cruel and unconscionable to tender hearted people. I don't know if I could stand by and not try to put out the fire if I was one of those firemen. But the hard truth is, if people get the service whether or not they choose to pay, it won't be long before nobody has any service. Somebody who wanted $75 more than they wanted the insurance is not likely to have $15,000 to pay for the service after the fact, especially when they are facing serious home repairs due to the fire.

Most homeowners including this one have insurance that would be happy to pay that $15,000 vs paying off the entire home & contents. If they don't pay, put a lean on the property.

As far as $15k not being enough per fire on 1 in 200 homes. It is more than they are collecting if they all pay $75. The town will make far more with that $15k surcharge than they will watching houses burn & losing residents. It is a simple business decision that they screwed up.

Towns assess values to homes and charge taxes accordingly to pay for services like fire protection. And towns have no qualms whatsoever confiscating the house if the homeowner doesn't pony up those taxes. So the homeowner will be without a home just the same.

But in this case we don't have a town. We have a large unincorporated area in which the homeowners apparently chose not to organize a rural fire department but did form a contractual agreement with the city for fire protection in return for fees paid by the homeowners. It is all well and good to say that the homeowner should agree to pay the $15k when his house catches on fire, but in fact there is absolutely no means the city will have to collect it once the fire is out. They will have no legal claim on the property, no means of assessing taxes, no legal way to collect on a bill for services sent if the homeowner then admits he doesn't have $15k and no means to borrow it. And if the homeowner skips out on agreed payments, then that is that.

Again it works like any other insurance. And no insurance company will stay in business for long if it accepts payment for policies after the loss has been incurred or the claim filed.

We all are bleeding hearts with sympathy for that errant homeowner and contempt for a fire department that didn't put out the fire. But the brutal truth is that they were promoting the general welfare and ensuring that other homeowners would continue to have fire protection by not doing so.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Do you really think 15K is enough to equip and maintain fire apparatus for an entire county for a year? I have 5 pieces of heavy equipment for a 30 acre job site, and I pay much more than 15K per year for fuel and maintenance. Then factor in training and H&W, and you've left 15,000 far behind.

All in all, $75.00 per home per year is more than fair to provide coverage for an unincorporated county. If they were left to fund it themselves, if would have a much higher fee per home. And they would be on the hook for maintenance and utilities for the buildings the trucks were parked in.

And that is the devil in the details right there.

The folks in the city don't have an option whether to pay or not for fire service. Taxes are applied to every household to cover fire service, police protection, etc. etc. etc. They pay their taxes or the city or county takes the house and sells it for whatever they can get. The homeowner does get whatever is left over after the taxes are retrieved IF there is anything left over.

But people who don't buy insurance on purpose have nobody to blame but themselves if they need the insurance and don't have it. The principle behind this incident with the fire deparment may seem cruel and unconscionable to tender hearted people. I don't know if I could stand by and not try to put out the fire if I was one of those firemen. But the hard truth is, if people get the service whether or not they choose to pay, it won't be long before nobody has any service. Somebody who wanted $75 more than they wanted the insurance is not likely to have $15,000 to pay for the service after the fact, especially when they are facing serious home repairs due to the fire.

Most homeowners including this one have insurance that would be happy to pay that $15,000 vs paying off the entire home & contents. If they don't pay, put a lean on the property.

As far as $15k not being enough per fire on 1 in 200 homes. (I don't know how many homes are in the county. The average house fire is 1 in 200) It is more than they are collecting if they all pay $75. The town will make far more with that $15k surcharge than they will watching houses burn & losing residents. It is a simple business decision that they screwed up.

But the town is not losing residents, the rural county is. The $75 is just a fee for responding outside of their tax base.

If the rural residents of that county were to feel the $75 fee was an onerous charge for fire protection, they are certainly free to set up a system more in line with their needs. But I'm sure that setting up, insuring, and maintaining a fire protection district would cost them far more than $75 per home per year in taxes.

But they should incur that expense so that one repeat deadbeat can be protected against a garbage fire that his own grandson started. It's the American Way.

 

[KissMy]

And that is the devil in the details right there.

The folks in the city don't have an option whether to pay or not for fire service. Taxes are applied to every household to cover fire service, police protection, etc. etc. etc. They pay their taxes or the city or county takes the house and sells it for whatever they can get. The homeowner does get whatever is left over after the taxes are retrieved IF there is anything left over.

But people who don't buy insurance on purpose have nobody to blame but themselves if they need the insurance and don't have it. The principle behind this incident with the fire deparment may seem cruel and unconscionable to tender hearted people. I don't know if I could stand by and not try to put out the fire if I was one of those firemen. But the hard truth is, if people get the service whether or not they choose to pay, it won't be long before nobody has any service. Somebody who wanted $75 more than they wanted the insurance is not likely to have $15,000 to pay for the service after the fact, especially when they are facing serious home repairs due to the fire.

Most homeowners including this one have insurance that would be happy to pay that $15,000 vs paying off the entire home & contents. If they don't pay, put a lean on the property.

As far as $15k not being enough per fire on 1 in 200 homes. It is more than they are collecting if they all pay $75. The town will make far more with that $15k surcharge than they will watching houses burn & losing residents. It is a simple business decision that they screwed up.

Towns assess values to homes and charge taxes accordingly to pay for services like fire protection. And towns have no qualms whatsoever confiscating the house if the homeowner doesn't pony up those taxes. So the homeowner will be without a home just the same.

But in this case we don't have a town. We have a large unincorporated area in which the homeowners apparently chose not to organize a rural fire department but did form a contractual agreement with the city for fire protection in return for fees paid by the homeowners. It is all well and good to say that the homeowner should agree to pay the $15k when his house catches on fire, but in fact there is absolutely no means the city will have to collect it once the fire is out. They will have no legal claim on the property, no means of assessing taxes, no legal way to collect on a bill for services sent if the homeowner then admits he doesn't have $15k and no means to borrow it. And if the homeowner skips out on agreed payments, then that is that.

Again it works like any other insurance. And no insurance company will stay in business for long if it accepts payment for policies after the loss has been incurred or the claim filed.

We all are bleeding hearts with sympathy for that errant homeowner and contempt for a fire department that didn't put out the fire. But the brutal truth is that they were promoting the general welfare and ensuring that other homeowners would continue to have fire protection by not doing so.

I see your point & I also made it on one of these threads. The fire department should carry some quick claim deeds or lien agreements or accept cash, gold or phoned in & approved credit card payment up front. "Pay Before We Spray"