it’s not an inferior service vis-a-vis their clientele and I don’t see any indication that it became a four-alarm fire because of the delay.
Skip the platitudes. I’m talking about what actually happened in this incident. I think it makes a clear argument that the people who voted against a tax-supported fire department are idiots. That this is a bad result, and an inevitable result, and furthermore, a foreseeable result of the path they chose.
I would love to step in and help out all of the morons that vote against their self interest, I truly would, but the system just isn’t set up for that. This idiot is one symptom of a much MUCH larger problem.
They’ve had this system for 20 years! This is not the first house to burn down. This is what the morons want, so this is what the morons get.
Getting free fire service is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.
I’ve argued these topics in a variety of threads, and the simple conclusion is that it’s not for me to tell stupid people how to live. Nor is it the fire department’s responsibility to bail him out.
We have too much of this philosophy going around. Home owners made REALLY bad choices over the past 8 years. Really fucking terrible choices, but it’s not their fault, it’s the banks, and the subprime, and fanny and freddy, anybody OTHER than the person that made the shitty choice.
Stop facilitating the stupid!
Ok, so how do you propose to rescue them from their own idiocy? If you give them “more government” they scream at you and call you a socialist, and then promptly vote you out of office. That’s why I said what I said.
Let’s say we had a crystal ball that told us that there would be 10 fires in our little burgh in the next three years, and that 8 of those fires were guaranteed to happen in year three. That means we’re looking at 2 fires that will happen at unknown times. So our choice is to either fund a fire department so that it can exist for the next three years and be in place to cover those 2 unknown fires, or we say “screw it” and only fund it in year three. If we say “screw it,” should we expect fire fighters to come out in those first two years if a fire breaks out?
How about you actually respond to the supposition as opposed to whining about how Cranick isn’t being punished to your satisfaction. If you put people in a situation where there is a reasonable expectation that they might be put in danger, you can assume that they will want to be compensated for that risk. I contend that it is eminently foreseeable that someone will react violently to having trained firemen sit idly by while their house burns down. That doesn’t mean I condone assault, just that I can see how that would happen given the circumstances. Do you disagree?
Not nearly as complicated as you make it seem. Hell, if everyone from Comcast Cable to the local Flower Shop can do it (with or without employing extra people), then it’s not that hard.
They might charge him criminally given the facts, but they might not. I can assure that his lawyers would argue that since the fire department had agreed in the past to put out the fire, he had a reasonable expectation that they would do it again, and thus, they should be held partly liable this time; and that as firefighters, they have an ethical duty to assist when lives are in danger. Either way, the city will have to defend itself at a cost of some multiple of the cost of putting out the fire.
People make bad choices all the time BECAUSE we are ultimately bad at assessing risk. The point is that we live in a society that tries to mitigate the consequences of doing so when it’s reasonable to do so. By your logic, we shouldn’t allow bankruptcy, or require that hospitals treat everyone regardless of whether they can pay. Why is this guy any worse than a lifelong drinker who wants a liver transplant, or a business owner who loses his shirt on a deal?
Nobody is arguing that they should extinguish the fire for free. If I missed someone saying that, feel free to quote them in your response. What most seem to be saying is that billing him after that fact is the most reasonable, moral, and rational thing to do. You can continue to attack strawmen if you like, but no one seems to be arguing that.
As much as you’d hate to believe, I don’t think Comcast or Betty’s Flower Shoppe has ever successfully foreclosed on a lien. Hell, I’m not even sure either of them has successfully gotten a lien on a residence.
I wonder if that’s why they didn’t/couldn’t respond to Cranick’s call - they’re probably not insured if something happens when the fire isn’t in the city limits or on the property of one of their legitimate “customers.”
brickbacon; you’re really late to the game so a lot of our patience has been exhausted by **Der Trihs **saying it repeatedly.
The municipal fire department owes this guy nothing, because he does not live in the municipality, he lives outside of their jurisdiction, where you aware of that? He lives several miles outside, in an different township. His township doesn’t have a fire department.
Since you’ve magically absolved Cranick of any responsibility, the next person in line is the country government and NOT the near by city.
It is not the city’s job to provide fire service, it is the county’s, they failed to provide it. Mr Cranick knowingly lived in an area without fire services. That was his decision, and he’s been okay with that for 20 years. Were you aware of that?
I just can’t dumb this down any more for you. Cranick has a choice, he made it, this is the outcome, plane and simple.
If he didn’t want his house to burn down, he should have paid the $75 fee. He was clearly okay with the risk.
Further to that, he was dumb enough to burn garbage near the house. What are we supposed to do about that? In the municipality there are rules about burning garbage, Cranick chose to live in an area without garbage services or by-laws.
His house burning down is the direct result of his actions, and no one elses.
Of course I disagree, it’s fucking retarded, and has been since it was first suggested a few pages back.
Fine, now the FD has a choice, provide free service, or hire security, guess what’s cheaper.
Again, we’ve been through this, and yes it is hard, and it is costly. It’s also not what the fire department is set up to do. Comcast is and the florist are.
Instead of setting up a massive billing and collection system, the FD decided they’d simply not go to the house of people that aren’t part of their subscription. Problem solved.
Cranick knew that. he made a choice, this is the results of his choice.
You know what else the fire department could have done? Stolen $75 from him every year, would that be justified? Should Cranick not worry that firefighters might rough him up to get the $75?
Why is it okay for Cranick to be violent but not the FD? Or could you just drop that retarded line of argument.
Yup, such is the beautify of the American legal system. Spill hot coffee, become a millionaire. Doesn’t really change the facts at hand.
The firefighters have NO ethical duty what so ever, I’m not sure where you got that idea, you need to disavow yourself of it.
And on top of that point, the firefighters are employed by the municipality and NOT the county where he lives. As was joked earlier, they have has much responsibility as the FDNY.
Which makes me wonder, where were you during all this? Why didn’t you help?! What level of responsibility are YOU prepared to accept?
It’s been going on for 20 years, at least 3 other houses (and a barn) have burned down, and at least two other FD’s refuse calls to non-payers. What about all those FD?
I’ve been told a number of times on this board that the US is a free society. If I had my way Mr Cranick wouldn’t have the choice, he’d pay $75 a year to local taxes.
And you know what, he’d also have single payer health care, legal weed, garbage collection, and his gay son could get married, all things he’s too stupid to vote for. All things I can’t help him with.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say there, but yes, by my logic people should be held accountable for their choices. Bankruptcy/foreclosure shouldn’t be a get out of jail free card. Business owners (and bankers) that made shitty deals should have to eat it. And life long drunks should be at the back of the transplant list.
Now, but YOUR logic, the life long drunk has no responsibility, he can sue who ever he wants that he feels owes him a liver, and it has to be provided because he might get violent. how do you life them apples?
Ah good, the strawman attempt was made, haven’t seen that in a couple of pages either.
Other fire departments have tried to get paid after the fact, less than 50% paid. Ditto for ambulances.
The FD is not set up, nor do they want to be set up, to run on a pay per call basis. To suddenly jump in after the fact and demand that they act like something other than a fire department is fucking retarded. Good luck with that.
No, actually I’m not. Are you contending that the costs of having a FD that fights 100 fires is generally far below that of an identical FD that fights 101 fires? If you are, I would love to see some numbers on that.
He offered to pay for the costs of fighting the fire. You are the one making the assumption that he thought it was cheap to do so.
They would do the same thing they would if the guy had paid $75. They have insurance regardless. That’s not really an extra cost. Even considering the vanishingly small increase in the likelihood that something bad might happen, the negatives far outweigh them.
No, it doesn’t. Let’s go through this very, very slowly. Paying $75 is like an insurance policy. Do you decide your medical insurance is not worth it because the hospital presented a full bill after treatment to someone without insurance? No one is suggesting Mr. Cranick should not have to pay. Your assumption is that Mr. Cranick would be a free rider, but nobody is suggesting that should be the case.
How is it extortion to charge the costs of fighting the fire, plus the additional costs involved with obtaining payment?
Yes, it does.
It costs money to fight claims, even “baseless” ones.
Why do you think some companies pay more for late shifts, or stores in bad areas? Making policies that will likely enrage your customers will likely make it harder to attract and retain employees. Mitigating that has a cost.
For example, say you make a rule at a restaurant you own that waiters must confront customers who attempt to leave without paying the bill. Don’t you think that a rule like that will result in some confrontations that might become violent?
Also, criminal behavior is certainly foreseeable. Police departments would not be able to project their ticketing revenue otherwise. We would not be able to apportion funding if we could not predict criminal behavior.
Since when is foreclosing on a lien the only option? BTW, I don’t think (correct ime if I’m wrong) that a private creditor can force a sale on a house anyway. They can, however, sell it to a collection agency. Costs them nothing, and brings in the revenue if they need it. Either way, they have several options.
I think we need national legislation saying you can’t be turned down for fire insurance by a pre-existing condition like your house being on fire already. This will deal with the problem of predatory fire departments driving up the cost of fire insurance by buying new equipment.
Regards,
Shodan
Have you been working on that this whole time?
no, i decide that my medical insurance is not worth it when the hospital gives the non-insured patient a bill reduction that brings his costs to a point at which I’m willing to forego the insurance product on the slight chance that I get injured.
look, if their actual costs are, let’s say $10,000 to fight a fire, they are never going to recover that money from broke-ass rural freeholders, and no company is ever going to pay money for that debt, either (i incidentally find it very funny that you just assume a debt purchaser is waiting in the wings to buy fire department debt instruments). if the actual costs are closer to $1000, then I only have to go a decade or so without paying for fire insurance before my risk-taking pays off. And when everyone rationally decides not to pay the $75, their revenues will crater and the FD would completely cease operations in the rural area for want of funds.
Care to hazard a guess how many fires an average person has experienced in their lives?
you said “the costs several times over”… and yes it is extortion when you sit there and charge 10x more to save a house because you know your debt recovery rate is so bad that debt purchasers won’t give you but .10 per dollar of debt.
no, it doesn’t. that municipality benefits not one iota from his property taxes.
ok, well i guess the FD should just fold up and stop fighting fires, lest one baseless claim cost them something. you can’t conclude that an FD should just be held hostage to barratry and provide services lest they incur a measly sum in defending an unmeretorious claim (for which they can receive much of their costs back, usually)
I’m not aware of any employer that pays you to work in a bad location. If that’s the case, wages would be higher in the ghetto. Care to conclude if that’s accurate or not?
Graveyard shift is paid at a premium because no one likes working at 3AM and having a completely ass-backwards life from the rest of society sans a wage premium.
yes, which is why employers don’t have those rules. the FD didn’t confront anyone here. non sequitur.
There’s a difference between ticket revenue (which is largely driven by the PDs themselves) and lock-you-up-in-jail criminal activity. another non sequitur.
well what other options are there for a lien? sit on it and water it? they sell it for pennies on the dollar, which will never recover their original costs in the whole thing. the companies that willingly provide unsecured credit to customers have to do so because of business necessity (i.e. you’ll go elsewhere) and they take losses on those transactions… which drives up the cost for everyone else.
and yes, you’re wrong. if they have a lien, they can foreclose. no one does though because it’s… wait for it… too expensive and lengthy relative to what they’d recover. (I mean shit, short sales are in vogue right now… why do you think that is?)
I’m honestly shocked at home many people think someone who specifically chose to opt out of getting a service should receive it anyways. Shocked. For discussions sake, anyone have a ballpark figure on how much it actually costs the fire department to put out one fire.
The number is right there in your post. My god, this is just too stupid to explain, I’m going to go work on why monkeys aren’t evolving into humans. Go learn about how a fire department works, then come back with some original thoughts, this has all been fleshed out and buried.
Okay, let’s try this from a different angle. Does a fire department, working as you say on a pay-per-spray model, have the right to refuse a call? Comcast is allowed to refuse me service, as is the florist. Can the fire department?
Also, for the love of god, realize that the fire department has never been on a pay-per-call basis. It makes no sense, they don’t have a cost model set up for this situation, it’s not what they do.
It is true that they COULD have set up that system, they COULD have sent out an a la carte menu of services. But they didn’t, and Cranick knew that. You are the only one left that doesn’t know that.
Are you talking about something different? Does fire mean something other than things burning? I’m really confused now, do you know what a fire is and how it’s fought? it’s not evident from your posts.
Right, I tried to make that argument on page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, and 7.
Mr Cranick didn’t pay his insurance premium, then he had a fire, now he wants the payout. Do you know any insurance providers that allow you to start a policy after you’d had a car accident?
Try to apply your logic to that scenario. Car insurance costs $300 a year, you don’t pay, get in an accident, and then call them up.
“I’ve been in an accident”
“Uh, sir, your policy lapsed”
“I know, I just want to pay for this one.”
“We don’t do that”
“what do you mean? even my florist can do that, I’ll pay what ever it costs”
“Sir, that’s not how it works, first you pay, then we file claims”
“You terrorist bitch, i’ll kill you and your family then burn your two dogs your cat!!!”
Do you think insurance companies have special pricing to cover the risk of assault on their agents?
Have you had much chance to give this any thought? I worry you jumped in head first and realized now the pool isn’t as deep as you thought.
Are you familiar with the concept of extortion. I’ll give you a second.
…
…
See, that’ extortion. When a house is on fire is a piss poor time to begin negotiations. Mr Cranick “would have paid anything.”
But again, we’re back to the original problem, the fire department doesn’t have a per-call fee they can access him with. That’s not what they do, were you aware of that? What does your local fire station charge per call?
It also costs money to file those claims, Mr Cranick is going to be busy cleaning up for the next little while.
Right, and so did Cranick. He choose not to pay. And they choose not to put out his fire.
Yes, I am aware of that.
How have I absolved him of responsibility? I am suggesting he pay the associated costs for putting out the fire.
I get it. How does that invalidate anything I’ve argued?
So are you ok with making everyone suffer the full consequences of their decisions? Do you really think society would be better off. How far down this road do you want to go?
Well then you are clearly too invested in defending the indefensible to think rationally. This is why some employers fire people on Fridays, and do other things to mitigate the risk of something bad happening. I don’t know why you don’t get it, but there are tons of examples of taking minor steps to avoid conflict that could result in really bad things happening.
Nobody is providing a free service. Again, please show me where someone suggested Cranick shouldn’t have to pay. I’m waiting…
You saying is costly and difficult is different from it actually being difficult. Any cites to back up your claim? The local florist isn’t set up to pursue delinquents and more than the FD is. They also don’t have to set up a massive billing and collection system. Plus, the FD is already billing people, so presumably someone is already working in that capacity in some form.
Violence is foreseeable, not okay. What part of this is hard to understand?
Another example showing the depth of your ignorance. The McDonald’s hot coffee example you allude to was not a frivolous case even though people love to present it as such to make an unsubstantiated claim about the legal field. Regardless, it just confirms your apparent commitment to ignoring the facts.
I guess you are unaware that ethics may vary from one person to another.
The sticking point here is a contractual obligation; in this case $75. Neither I, nor the NYFD are in a position to help, nor have we offered to provide protection for money. Your argument is so nonsensical, I’m not sure I can realyl comprehend how you think it’s at all relevant.
Well, at least you are consistent. Luckily, most people are more reasonable than that.
Why is that a problem? It doesn’t seem that it is a financial burden. It also doesn’t seem that it discouraged people from buying protection. I admit that it may feel wrong, but if they want to remedy that, they should fight harder for payment.
I’m going to talk to some friends tonight and see what kind of number we can come up with.
But as I’ve said before, it goes way beyond the foam+fuel+labour. Having a firecrew working on an residential fire is an extremely risky process. And unlike Cranick, the FD is required to properly prepare for that risk. From the department’s standpoint, they are terrified of losing a firefighter, again something Cranick doesn’t give a shit about. And in a lot of cases, the decision is made to let the house burn rather than risk the life of a firefighter. After all, houses can be rebuilt, firefighters not so much. Although that would make for an awesome movie.
There was a contract? That carried an obligation? You got a cite for that?
ruh-roh, Shags!
“We can rebuild him. We have the technology. Faster. Stronger. Wetter.”