You are aware of the differences between a county and a municipality, right? The “they” you’re talking about is the city and not the county in this case. The city has the budget to maintain a fire department that services, can help out the city of Fulton to the north, and with a subscription fee an area of 5 miles radius outside the city. I was addressing the possible reasons why this subscription fee was in place instead of the county taking on the responsibilities of having their own fire department because I think it’s more complicated than people wanting to avoid taxes.
Cranick’s solution wan’t the best, given all information. The FD’s may not have been. The county’s policy apparently is not. But Cranick & the FD made choices that seemed right to them–that’s rational–& given what they knew may well have been right–that’s sensible. No one sees the whole picture. That’s why the system needs to change incentives.
I support single payer UHC, so that’s not much of an argument.
And there IS occasional violence thanks to our refusal to treat the sick for monetary reasons. There would likely be more if the people being preyed upon weren’t ill or outright dying.
You have no way of knowing that. In my experience most people function with a high level of misconception about their local laws.
Oh, & can I say that while I dove in & responded to posts as I read them, I found Chronos’s post #95, directly above my first post, said a lot that I wanted to say & better? Specifically, a less Pittish version of my post #120?
Much as I was leaning toward Der Trihs’s POV, yeah, that would cause doctors to simply quit the practice.
No ideology works in its pure form, for the same reason. Liberals and Libertarians alike tend to not realize that.
Whoa. That changes everything. They changed the rules on him.
I don’t think that an act of charity three years previous counts as “changing the rules”.
Single payer UHC is much the same as a tax-supported fire department that serves everyone in a jurisdiction like a county – and that’s why I support both.
That’s the way it goes. You offer people without fire services the chance to get them, under reasonable terms, and all of a sudden you have a moral obligation to provide those services, even to people who refuse your terms.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Wasn’t it the great Donald Rumsfeld that so famously said:
“ There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know. ”
And yes, Chronos summed it up pretty well.
I’m also on the side that Cranick acted both rationally and stupidly. $75 is a lot of money when weighed against all of the other risks in his life. Fire is just one thing that may happen, but not the only thing. Floods, vandals, thieves, tornadoes, termites, locusts, frogs. It only seems stupid because he eventually had a fire that he couldn’t contain on his own. I don’t like that we consider it as fact that he MUST have fire protection insurance. As I said, he house still might have burned to the ground, after all houses in socialist countries burn down all the time. Cranick was able to enjoy that $75, and now he’ll enjoy a nice new house.
There is also a lot of confusion here about how much it costs for the fire department to put out a house fire. It is no small feat, and requires a lot more than just the gas to get out there. Most trucks now are using fire suppressing foam which costs a fortune. All the crew are required to wear ventilators now. Lots of extras, long story short, a single incident costs a fortune. In another thread of mine someone found that the cost of a single burglary in Toronto was over $50,000 by the time it was all said and done.
So I just got off the phone with Best Buy.
Two months ago I bought a phone from them, and as with everything they offered me a $7 per month protection plan.
I scoffed and instead treated myself to a tasty new sub from Quizno’s every month.
Well, wouldn’t you know, I’m at Quizno’s, chowing down, when I bump my phone off the table, shattering it on the floor.
So I call up Best Buy and tell them that I’d like the protection plan now, I’m ready to pay my $7 so that they can fix my $600 phone.
Wanna guess what they told me?
I bet they were willing to let you pay the actual cost of replacing your phone, unlike the Fire Department unwilling to let this guy pay the actual cost of putting out the fire.
What do I win?
But, I suspect, $75 would have covered him even if he had three small fires in a year, right? Or a large fire every two years? No, by letting him pay after the fact once, a fee amount that if he’d paid it in advance would have covered multiple cases, they created an expectation that he could pay after the fact again. They encouraged this behavior, because they made the mistake of treating him as a peer, & thinking that an individual would freely & of his own will do what they thought intelligent. The world doesn’t work that way. And he thinks he was screwed now. Ideally they should have made him pay more–the first time–for getting the service after the fact.
Nothing, because the “cost” of replacing your phone is way less than the retail price he’s going to pay.
If I was in the business of fire services, and was pricing out my service to a “client” who’s house was burning down, I can pretty much guarantee that the price is going to be something on the order of “sell me your house for $1, and I’ll make sure you have some belongings to take to your new home.”
Serves him right.
Don’t want your house to burn down? Pay your fucking taxes/optional fees/insurance. QED
That your broken phone doesn’t produce an expanding zone of destruction that if left unchecked can destroy an entire city? Unlike, say, fire?
the fire wasn’t unchecked. just unchecked on his property.
There’s an app for that.
And if they tried to stop it but failed because they let it get too big? Fire doesn’t come with an off switch. What they did was criminally irresponsible; as far as I’m concerned they should all lose their jobs and be banned for life from fire fighting work.
It’s not like firefighters don’t fail to contain fires, yet that usually doesn’t foretell the immolation of an entire township :rolleyes:
And, besides, that’s the risk that the people voting for this fire regime assume. If they didn’t want to run the risk that fires in the no-service rural properties would impact them, they were free to vote to raise their own taxes and remove the moral hazard for the Cranicks of the world.
Criminal responsibility? What legal obligation were they under, exactly?