WTF? Pay Up or We Let Your House Burn Down?

[Shot_From_Guns]

@gonzomax

Take your mittens off when you type ,

First off, I would like to observe that starting *that *post with *that *sentence fragment is hilarious.

Are you suggesting this is a special case? Do you really think there wont be others? I guess everybody else gladly paid their 75 and in your own total ignorance, you think it wont happen again.

I literally have no idea what you’re asking here. *You’re *the one claiming that saving the house of someone who didn’t pay up will somehow magically cause them to start paying again, when there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary, from the same guy. Unless I got whooshed by the post of yours I quoted, which I doubt.

We have *hard evidence *that saving the houses of those who do not pay the fee will only encourage them to *keep *not paying.

What is your reasoned response to the next guy?

Ideally, there won’t be a “next guy,” because these people will either (a) realize their system is retarded and just approve the tax already or (b) realize that they can’t freeload off the system anymore, and either pay up and get protection or decline protection and suck it up when their gamble backfires.

Do we have a committee go to fires and vote?

What the fuck does that even mean?

Nobodies house should be allowed to burn down ,when it can be stopped.

Firefighting doesn’t happen for free. If you think it should, I await evidence that you’re now offering your services at no charge in any area that doesn’t currently have coverage. But not breathlessly, because I’d only pass out after a couple of minutes, anyway, and I don’t want to risk hitting my head on something and ending up sounding like you.

[Telemark]

@gonzomax

Nobodies house should be allowed to burn down ,when it can be stopped. Fuck the 75 bucks. Fuck your childish anger. It was wrong .

No, it wasn’t wrong. There are consequences to actions. If this guy wasn’t a repeat offender, I might feel otherwise, but not with his track record.

[Shot_From_Guns]

You’re offered health insurance through your company. You decline to take it. Your appendix bursts, leaving you with a $24,000 hospital bill. Should you be able to force the insurance company to cover your charges, even though you haven’t been paying premiums?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ajb867

“…These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.”

Ahh so my days of not having to treat people with out insurance may soon be at hand! What a wonderful world!

If your treatment of uninsured patients inhibited your ability to keep your doors open, would you keep treating those uninsured patients? What if those uninsured patients could afford insurance but came to you and then stiffed you on the bill? Would you keep treating them then?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Enderw24

ajb867, let me ask this. If residents outside this municipality learn that, while there’s a $75 a year fee for fire protectiont, if you don’t pay that fee, the fire department will go ahead and put out your fire anyway. These residents also know that the fire department can bill them, but since there’s no convenient way to collect that money, whatever that bill says can also be ignored.

What happens?

What always happens… the government loving city folks pay more taxes so that the government hating country folk can pay less taxes. See everyone gets what they want.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@hansel

@fjs1fs

Change the “system” you morons! I.E. make it mandatory, like TAXES. What the OP was getting at but it hasn’t been said yet is that Fire Depts, like Police Depts, and Hospitals should be basic municipal services that Everyone is entitled to, and cannot opt out of.

The residents of the county voted down a poll measure in 2002 to do exactly that. The cost to them in increased property taxes? $0.13/year. Thirteen cents per year.

I think that was 13 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value. So if you had a million dollar home that would be 1300 dollars/year.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@hansel

You can’t have a nice society full of nice people when a bunch of people refuse to be part of it.

Well I don’t know about a society full of nice people but OUR society has had Republicans for years.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Inigo_Montoya

I’d not be surprised to find he’d voided his policy by essentially prohibiting fire protection for his home.

Nah, they’re paying but apparently he also cheaped out on the coverage so it may not be enough to rebuild.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@kushiel

Ah, socialism. Where I pay a lump sum and never worry if the police, firefighters, ambulances and other life and property saving services will refuse to help me.

Seriously, I’m appalled at the fact that it was an optional charge. I mean, my Canadian taxes pay for emergency care, but not for massages - that’s something covered in my additional insurance through work that I had to opt in to. But that’s a massage, not a fucking fire.

Fuck this, I’m moving to canada. Is there an insurance option for pedicures ?

[Inigo_Montoya]

Great. Now the poor victim will be on the news crying about how his Eeevil insurance company slipped him the sausage.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@buttonjockey308

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re a retard with less understanding of how the world works than a child. Period.

Your opinion, however I have been IN the EXACT same situation AS a firefighter who responded with a crew to a home that did not “contract” with the department I was working for at the time because they were in an unincorporated area. Know what I and the rest of our crew did? Put out the fucking fire.

The way the world works on paper, you snotty little fuck-dripping and the way it works in REAL LIFE are two different things. I know how things are SUPPOSED to work, and I’d say after 20 years in the business, a damn site better than YOU do.

Sometimes, you do what you need to do and sort out the details later, this was one of those times. The ironic part is that these guys, on passing the home in their personal cars, probably would have stopped to help.

It’s a horrible system, and these are the consequences, but I maintain they had a duty to act and they failed to do so. Bottom line.

Here’s the thing. The city would eventually either have to raise taxes on its citizens or it would have to stop providing free firefighting services to the county residents. I think the latter is much more likely than the former. Do you think its better that some people in the county get services or that noone in the county gets services because the municipality can no longer afford to provide it?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@emacknight

@Bosstone

They have reliable access to actuaries.

Nurrrrr.

I’d actually love to see how this scenario would play out to an actuary.

What is the probability of having a house fire?
What is the probability the fire will be too big to contain?
What is the cost of a house fire?
What is the incremental cost difference to home owner’s insurance?
How much garbage does he burn?

As far as risk assessment goes, his insurance provider is probably the most idiotic out of all the players in this retarded little opera, and wouldn’t we assume they have access to the best actuaries?

I’m not sure what I hadn’t thought of this before, but his insurance provider has already crunch all of these numbers. The probability of the fire, the cost of the house, distance to fire station, and a hundred other factors. But they’re the ones that lost out in all this, while Cranick wins. I can guarantee* you Cranick hasn’t paid more into his policy than his house is worth. As an example, I have a $300k policy that costs me $800 a year–I’ve got 370 years before I lose out on the deal.
*I can’t really guarantee anything

I don’t think even one tenth of one percent of the homes in my county burn down in any given year. Yet I pay about a third of a percent of my home value in fire insurance.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Damuri_Ajashi

If your treatment of uninsured patients inhibited your ability to keep your doors open, would you keep treating those uninsured patients? What if those uninsured patients could afford insurance but came to you and then stiffed you on the bill? Would you keep treating them then?

Further thoughts:

1.) Our society has determined that everyone should have access to medical care, regardless of ability to pay. However, it has not made the same determination for fire departments.

2.) People are presumably not entitled to *non-emergency *medical care without first demonstrating an ability to pay. For example, if I come into the ER with a broken leg and no insurance, they must set it. But if I go into the ER and demand a boob job, I doubt they’ll give me the surgery. The fire in question here merely destroyed property–no human lives were at stake.

I swear to god, Damuri, I can’t *wait *until smartphones get smart enough that you can actually fucking multiquote from your damned BlackBerry.

[emacknight]

@buttonjockey308

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re a retard with less understanding of how the world works than a child. Period.

Your opinion, however I have been IN the EXACT same situation AS a firefighter who responded with a crew to a home that did not “contract” with the department I was working for at the time because they were in an unincorporated area. Know what I and the rest of our crew did? Put out the fucking fire.

The way the world works on paper, you snotty little fuck-dripping and the way it works in REAL LIFE are two different things. I know how things are SUPPOSED to work, and I’d say after 20 years in the business, a damn site better than YOU do.

Sometimes, you do what you need to do and sort out the details later, this was one of those times. The ironic part is that these guys, on passing the home in their personal cars, probably would have stopped to help.

It’s a horrible system, and these are the consequences, but I maintain they had a duty to act and they failed to do so. Bottom line.

Ordinarily I’d agree with your sentiment, having worked as an EMT, lifeguard, ski patrol, Coast Guard Search and Rescue, and even volunteer fire fighter (though I only got one call and it was lame).

But from a practical standpoint, what happens if one of the firemen are injured helping this guy out? What insurance would cover them? Or what if they damaged city owned equipment in the process, who would pay for it?

Even worse, what if they damaged this guy’s house in the process. If you worked as a fireman you’d know those are issues of concern.

The scenario as played out isn’t all that uncommon. As a lifeguard we had an area we were responsible for, if we rescued someone outside it we were “on our own” as far as liability and coverage goes. Again, it was the responsibility of the idiot that swims in the “dangerous currents do not swim here you will die” area. Chances are we’d go get him, but there is no guarantee, and no obligation.

As a member of Ski Patrol, we provided rescue services to people within the ski boundaries. If you choose to go outside it you’re fucked. Again, we might help you out, but there is no obligation. You broke our contractual agreement but disregarding the rules.

In the Coast Guard we also had a boundary area of response, if we went outside it that puts our “clients” at risk. We also weren’t supposed to go out in heavy fog or into surf zones. There is a liability issue regarding emergency service personnel that the bulk majority here has neglected to consider. Nice to see the public will have their back when shit goes south.

[emacknight]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@emacknight

I’d actually love to see how this scenario would play out to an actuary.
snip

I’m not sure what I hadn’t thought of this before, but his insurance provider has already crunch all of these numbers. The probability of the fire, the cost of the house, distance to fire station, and a hundred other factors. But they’re the ones that lost out in all this, while Cranick wins. I can guarantee* you Cranick hasn’t paid more into his policy than his house is worth. As an example, I have a $300k policy that costs me $800 a year–I’ve got 370 years before I lose out on the deal.
*I can’t really guarantee anything

I don’t think even one tenth of one percent of the homes in my county burn down in any given year. Yet I pay about a third of a percent of my home value in fire insurance.

Ha, sucker.

[Fir_na_tine]

I’d love to know what they have for insurance coverage.

For those not familiar with it, homeowners policies have a feature called “Co-insurance”. For the sake of clarity lets assume the home will cost $100,000. to replace. Lets assume they have a $50,000. policy - since they assumed they would never see a total loss. When the insurance payout is calculated, the insurance company will determine that the property was only 50% insured and pay out 50% of the policy or $25,000.

A fairly common problem when property is undervalued for insurance purposes.

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

Take your mittens off when you type ,

Yup, terrible way to start a post in which you say a lot of stupid things.

@gonzomax

Are you suggesting this is a special case? Do you really think there wont be others?

If only there was some way to magically know the answer to this.

Wait, it just so happens I have this special thing I call a computer, connected to something I call the internet.

My god man, are you really that clueless. It happened THREE times in the past couple years, and a four time to a barn (that may have had horses in it).

THREE TIMES ALREADY.

It has already happened to Cranick once before.

Seriously, did you not know that? How did you miss it?

When asked, two other fire departments reported that they would have also refused to go, one more said “maybe.”

Did you know that as well? Why are you being so intentionally obtuse?

@gonzomax

I guess everybody else gladly paid their 75 and in your own total ignorance, you think it wont happen again.

Well, it’s happened before, so yes, it will happen again.

Right now there are a handful of people thinking to themselves, “Should I pay the $75 this year? na, my house ain’t gunna burn down.”

As I said before, you are welcomed to go try to change their minds. Let me know how that goes.

@gonzomax

What is your reasoned response to the next guy?

“Remember last week when Cranick’s house burned down because he didn’t pay? You should give him a call and see if he has any more room in his trailer.”

@gonzomax

Do we have a committee go to fires and vote?

I have no idea what that means. It’s not a committee, it’s a dispatcher, and it’s happened before several times.

@gonzomax

There will likely be similar ,but of course not identical cases, to come up.

There have actually been identical cases.

@gonzomax

Bitching about one guy who you can joyously hate ,does not keep you from far more difficult decisions in the future.

Well, it’s happened before, and it will happen again. My concern will remain consistent, will yours?

@gonzomax

Nobodies house should be allowed to burn down ,when it can be stopped. Fuck the 75 bucks. Fuck your childish anger. It was wrong .

You’re right, he should have paid the $75, glad we cleared that up.

BTW This has happened three times in the past few years, and it also happened to Cranick before as well.

oh, and fuck YOUR childish anger. And your childish ability to process information. And your childish ability to ignore facts in favour of your childish beliefs.

[emacknight]

@Fir_na_tine

I’d love to know what they have for insurance coverage.

For those not familiar with it, homeowners policies have a feature called “Co-insurance”. For the sake of clarity lets assume the home will cost $100,000. to replace. Lets assume they have a $50,000. policy - since they assumed they would never see a total loss. When the insurance payout is calculated, the insurance company will determine that the property was only 50% insured and pay out 50% of the policy or $25,000.

A fairly common problem when property is undervalued for insurance purposes.

Uh? Run that by me again.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@emacknight

Uh? Run that by me again.

Homeowners insurance is priced assuming “insurance to value”; that is, if you buy a $100,000 insurance policy, that your house is worth about $100,000.

This is important because a $100,000 property has a certain probability of a partial loss or a total loss. Say there is one chance in 100 that the property will incur a 50% loss, and one chance in 500 that it will incur a total loss.

Whereas if you take out a $100,000 policy on a $200,000 home, the loss distribution is very different. Now you have one chance in 100 of incurring a $100,000 loss, whereas before you had only one chance in 500. (Regardless of the value of the home, the chances of a 50% loss or a total loss are about the same.)

Therefore if after a loss you are determined to have under-insured your property, the insurance company will apply a coinsurance penalty and reduce your recoverable. Here are more details (pdf).

In the unlikely event that you find any of this interesting, take actuarial exams.

[emacknight]

@Freddy_the_Pig

@emacknight

Uh? Run that by me again.

Homeowners insurance is priced assuming “insurance to value”; that is, if you buy a $100,000 insurance policy, that your house is worth about $100,000.

This is important because a $100,000 property has a certain probability of a partial loss or a total loss. Say there is one chance in 100 that the property will incur a 50% loss, and one chance in 500 that it will incur a total loss.

Whereas if you take out a $100,000 policy on a $200,000 home, the loss distribution is very different. Now you have one chance in 100 of incurring a $100,000 loss, whereas before you had only one chance in 500. (Regardless of the value of the home, the chances of a 50% loss or a total loss are about the same.)

Therefore if after a loss you are determined to have under-insured your property, the insurance company will apply a coinsurance penalty and reduce your recoverable. Here are more details (pdf).

In the unlikely event that you find any of this interesting, take actuarial exams.

Okay, wow, that makes total sense, I hadn’t even considered that a possibility. Which now explains why my agent didn’t like me trying to reduce my coverage.

Certainly not interesting, but definitely fascinating.