Letting the House Burn Down: Our Fee-For-Service Future?

Great Debates
1

From the AP:

Two questions.

  1. Was the firefighters’ decision not to help justifiable?
  2. Some argue that incidents like this are the natural consequence of an increasingly fee-for-service society, where once-publically subsidized services – including security, fire protection, and roads – are parceled out to private providers who will only serve those who have specifically subscribed. Do you think this is happening, or likely to happen? If so, will it be a positive or negative thing, on balance?

We haven’t had a libertarianism thread in a while…

2

If only a building and a vehicle were in danger, then there’s no problem with the decision. There would be problems if a life were in danger, or if other property (especially other people’s property) were in danger. Presumably the firefighters turned up to make sure the fire did not spread, and wasn’t endangering anyone, but why should they risk their lives? (and firefighting is always a risk – what if there are containers full of LPG or petrol in the garage?)

3

  1. Yes. I recon so. But it’s not pretty. Reminds me a bit of how the Roman Crassus made his money – and that man wasn’t a pretty sight either. Couldn’t they have some clause where you when they arrive at the fire will offer you an instant membership at a raised price?

  2. If membership is voluntary, there’s always some who will opt out. That’s their choice. And it’s a positive thing. Ourselves carrying the consequence of our actions and choices. That’s what separates adults from children.

4

Does this fire service recieve any public money or is it wholly privately funded? If it’s the former than they should have responded regardless of whether the member paid his/her dues.

5

Some might argue that, but this case doesn’t illustrate the point.

This is not a case of a city that USED to have a municipal fire department, but shut it down in favor of a pay-per-use service. This happened in a rural area that probably never had a government-run fire department. In such areas, all you typically have are volunteer fire brigades and/or the occasional private service.

6

link

Mo. Firefighters Refuse to Help Non-Member

7

Hmm, tricky. The thing about fire, like disease, is that it spreads. Thus, by ‘opting out’ you are arguably affecting other people than yourself. After all, we wouldn’t let an Ebola victim wander around just because they had no health insurance. If one of your neighbours had opted out of fire cover, would you really wait until the inferno had got going well enough to threaten your house before imploring the guys to turn on their damned hoses?

Of course, that’s why I think things like prevention of fire, crime and ill health should be mandatorily financed via taxes. It seems to me that introducing competition via privateering in these matters serves only to leave a lot more losers in very grave predicaments. (Of course, extra cover via private firms is no problem, but the universal baseline must first be addressed).

8

Local -paper with more details as to what happened

9

Mmmm…that’s not what we’re talking about here. That is mainly a concern in urban/suburban areas and the reason those municipalities fund fire service through mandatory and universal taxes. It’s also a good reason to not go to fee-based services in those areas.

But this is a rural area we’re talking about, so there was probably little chance of the fire spreading due to the distance between the houses on adjacent properties (please note this is speculation since I haven’t seen an image).

10

Yes, I suppose that in the instances where the fire definitely won’t spread to other buildings or woods etc. and there simply is no other fire cover at all, their actions could perhaps be justified. (I would still advocate some government cover be introduced, of course.)

11

As a city-bred person, this just leaves me aghast. Looking at the specific circumstances, and the laws involved, I imagine what was done was legal. However, the possible lack of notification might be an issue, and, I’m hesitant to bring it up, but I won’t rule out race/culture issues as well (if only at the level of a language barrier)

Does anyone else find this:
Rueda offered to pay, Evenson said, but the Monett department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing.
both funny and very sad?

12

I remember a similar thing happening to a schoolmate (would have been about 1980-81). The area in which we lived was not part of any town and had no services. Firetrucks would come out from one of the nearby towns, but only if your credit card had validated. No upfront money, no help. The area only recently added a property tax, which is used in some manner to fund firefighting service.

I think the firechief does have a point - if all you have is a subscription service, and non-members get the same service, soon you won’t have subscriptions and shortly thereafter you won’t have a service. However, I also think that the fact that the guy was willing to pay and they refused indicates that there was something more going on here. State law specifically covers this situation (departments allowed to bill non-members needing services), but in who-knows-how-long-they’ve-existed, this department has never bothered to set a policy? Sounds fishy to me. That perception could be colored by personal experiences with rural folks and their common reactions to ‘furriners’, however.

13

Wouldn’t it be hard to get a mortgage under these circumstances? Would a bank lend money in areas that might not put out a fire if the owner hadn’t paid his subscription? What bank would take the chance that a borrower might not keep up the subscription payments?

14

Just as a guess, the bank would make the loan conditioned on the insurance premium being made part of the mortgage payment to it, which the bank would then turn around and pay the fee with.

15

Just a note–just because an area is rural doesn’t mean the houses are far apart. Where I live is about as rural as it gets, but the mountainous terrain means that houses are bunched together on the rare spots of flat land. A fire in one house around here is very likely to be a danger to the houses around it–probably moreso than in the small city I used to live in.

I’m “in town”, and we actually have a paid fire service; there are volunteer services throughout the county, but they’re all tax and donation supported.

16

I think that the question is who let the house burn down. If blame is obligatory, blame the house’s owner.

17

I don’t know about a mortgage, but it’s hard to find an insurance carrier willing to write a policy on a house that is served by a non-governmental fire company.

Robin

18

It’s possible that the amount they’re allowed to bill afterwards (which is set by statute) might be lower than what it costs to join. It is a little surprising that they don’t have an on-the-spot joining policy, though (obviously they would have to charge a surcharge.)

19

No. Aside from being petty and spiteful, it creates a dangerous situation. At worst they should put out the fire and perhaps bill the owner.

That’s the reason we have government - to provide a basic level of certain services.

20

As shocking as this sounds not all county or municiple governments in the United States can afford the cost of maintaining a fire department.

Marc