to use industry terms, the firefighters who let the house burn are a bunch of ‘mutts’ who have no idea of the oaths taken by a real firefighter or the expected levels of service required by professional firefighting service organizations (read unions.)
Well at least your appendix will be treated first. Then they charge you.
This is not quite correct. Assume a total loss and the property was insured for 50K and has a 100K replacement cost. In the event of a total loss, the policy will pay the face value of 50K.
Assuming a co-insurance clause, in the event of a partial loss, the payout will be reduced by the percentage that the owner is self insuring. In this example 50%
So assume a 10K loss, 50K insurance, and 100K replacement cost. Insurance company says “You are only insured to 50% of value in a total loss, so in the event of a less than total loss, you are also self insuring for 50%. You just suffered a 10K loss, here is your check for 5K. Have a nice day.”
Guy created a no-win situation for the firefighters. Hopefully their difficult decision will lead to more homeowners electing to pay for fire protection, enabling them to pay for better/more equipment so that they can respond better/faster when there is a fire in the future.
I side with the firefighters, yet I still want to live in a society where peoples houses don’t burn while unfunded firefighters are put in the position of either being callus or being chumps. This, folks, is why socialism in the area of essential services is a good thing.
The problem isn’t that the firemen let the house burn, the problem is that the owner was given a choice, and chose the “if there is a fire, let it burn” option.
No, Olbion County (and all of TN counties) assess based on one quarter of the value of the house for determining residential real estate taxes. So $325 a year for this fictitious million dollar house and a whopping $32.50 a year for a median house.
And I sincerely doubt there are many(if any) million dollar homes there.
Rick, your statement is not correct. Read the first 5 or 6 pages of the pdf file Freddy the Pig provided. If there is a co-insurance clause, it applies to all losses. In your example, for a total loss the insurance company would pay out only $25,000. For a 10K loss they would pay out 5K.
Generally speaking this whole principle only applies if the property is insured for less than 80% of replacement value.
Really, now? What, pray tell, are the oaths taken by and the laws and regulations governing these particular firefighters in this particular situation?
If you don’t know, perhaps you should STFU instead of denigrating them.
-
If they continued to put out fires for non-paying customers, eventually the paying customers would see the unfairness of it all and quit paying, too. Then the fire department will be back to square one, which is to not provide services to the outlying county residents at all. At some point, the fire department had to draw a line in the sand and honor it.
-
I’m surprised that the insurance companies don’t make fire protection subscriptions mandatory for these type situations. It’d be very easy – either pony up the $75 yourself, or we’ll increase the premium $75 and pay the fee on our end. After all, the insurance company stands to lose as well in the event of a fire.
-
To me, this is no different than people who refuse to buy renter’s insurance. I can’t tell you how many times I read in the paper about a family who was displaced by a fire at their apartment building, and they end up losing everything because they didn’t get insurance. Sad, but also a lesson to everyone to get insurance.
BTW, when I read about schleps who lose everything, I’ll happily donate my used clothing and furniture to help them rebuild. At the end of the day, they’re to blame for their own stupidity, but I still will lend a hand if I can.
Or the insurance company can simply not insure the home for those refusing to pay the out-of-area fire coverage fee. Of course, that option might not be available depending on the insurance laws in the area.
What do the oaths say about insubordination? I’m pretty sure the firefighters were under orders not to put the fire out.
Read the bottom of page 6
If you have a 100K house, insured for 50K and suffer a total loss, the insurance company pays 50K and you are self insuring for 50K. 50+50 = 100
Doing it your way, the house is self insured for 50K (50%), the company pays 25K.
50K (self insurance) + 25K (insurance company) =75K Who pays the other 25K?
You are magically trying to make 50% co-insurance into 75% co-insurance.
Doesn’t work that way.
With regards to the “cost to society” notion, consider this:
Imagine a storm blew through and damaged his roof. Nothing major, but causing a small leak. Easy enough to fix, $5 worth of shingles, and $70 worth of labour. But he doesn’t bother, so water seeps into his ceiling rotting the roof, a truss, and the rafter below the leak. Then mold spreads through the insulation. Water continues to work its way across his ceiling and down the wall, eventually causing rot and mold in the floor boards. Any home owner would know that’s not going to be cheap to fix, and is going to reduce your home value significantly. Do we care? Is there a loss to society? Anyone else at fault?
Finally, and most importantly, should Cranick be ALLOWED to neglect this minor repair?
Then think about all the cars driving around today, and think about all the people that can’t be bothered to get their oil changed. A $20 fee, couple times a year, but ultimately could prevent complete engine failure. Do we care? Is there a loss to society? Anyone else at fault? Should it be allowed?
Why do we care so much about this house that the owner doesn’t give a shit about?
I’ve read that section 3 times now and you’re right. Still would like to hear the outcome of this claim.
It has been just shy of two days since I posted this.
The donations are just pouring in.
NOT.
The running tally is:
Number of contributions 0
Total dollars 0
Obviously all the RO in this thread is fine, but nobody wants to put their money where their mouth is.
emack, you seem to be excluding an enormous middle ground between “society should butt the hell out of my business, period!” and some smothering nanny level of micromanagement of every citizen’s life. It would certainly take a pretty intrusive societal oversight to determine that you were allowing your house to undergo slow deterioration. But you are correct, there is still a cost to society when this happens.
Where each of us falls on the sliding scale of the extremes identified above is ultimately a personal decision, not a matter for any hard and fast rule. The consensus of all of our personal decisions should become our societal contract, part of our governmental structure. And the necessary funding for that consensus (read: taxes) should also be part of our governmental structure.
But perhaps one element of the deciding process might be the amount of intrusion needed in order to ascertain the extent of the problem, or the kind and amount of damage occurring as its result. It’s hardly intrusive at all for society at large to note that your house is on fire; the flames give it away. And so, especially given the danger of your loss spreading to your neighbors, the cost to you (in terms of freedom of choice) versus the benefit (in preservation of real property and prevention of major dislocating events like homelessness) suggests that having publicly funded fire brigades is, overall, of marked advantage.
Similarly, illness or serious injury is reasonably apparent, and would require a serious effort to hide or disguise. The ‘flames’ (coughing, bleeding, falling down comatose, etc.) are easy enough to see, and noting them requires little intrusion into your private life. And like fire, many of these can be transmitted to those around you. The costs to you, to those you contact, to your business associations, and thus to all of society is substantial. Thus it seems reasonable to argue that there should be the societal equivalent of a fire brigade to ensure available and affordable routine medical care for every member of our society.
But in your specific example above, no, I would not favor the kind of intrusive societal program that would be necessary to prevent every single instance of neglect or oversight made by every single member of that society. We really don’t need a War Against Tiny Roof Leaks nor a Tzar thereof.
But perhaps the neglect of roof repairs is symptomatic of some other issue. Perhaps the person simply does not have the education to know that water seeping into his wall will result in significant damage. Or perhaps the person just doesn’t have enough money to make the needed repairs. Or perhaps the person has some sort of mental abnormality (dissociative disorders, hoarding, or others) that prevents him from recognizing or dealing with the problem. For these too (education, poverty, mental deficiency) I would argue that a societally provided and generally funded ‘safety net’ is also appropriate.
At least, that’s the way this old hippy sees it.
Can I have that bong now? Or at least a fresh Captain and Coke?
The mittens is about your typing in all caps, a childish and angry little tendency. Does anyone think that adds to a discussion, other than you I mean?
You can not clear up that a mans house burned to the ground, his 4 animals died ,while the fire department stood by and watched. That was wrong. It was not about the money, he offered to pay it.
Would the situation existed if he paid earlier . No. But it existed then and was wrongly handled. Again, it was obviously not about the money. It would have been paid on the sport. Bingo, money paid. But it was not about that. They were teaching him and others in the community a lesson. It was a terrible and unnecessary lesson. I am sure he was properly chastised when the fire started. He knew he made a mistake.
I am sure he would never have skipped paying again. But that is not good enough for you. You want a severe lesson taught and an enormous price to be paid. You got it and it makes you all snuggly ans warm inside.
I don’t feel anger. It is disgust.
Okay, I’m going to try this one last time, and then conclude that there is something wrong with you.
A few years ago, Cranick’s house caught on fire, did you know that? He hadn’t paid the $75, but in that case the FD put out the fire–as you demand–and charged him the $75.
Did he learn his lesson?
It seems he did not, because once again he couldn’t be bothered to pay the $75, and this, the second time, the firedepartment refused to provide their services.
You claimed, “He knew he made a mistake.” That’s bullshit, and now you know it, right? He made this exact same mistake before, and failed to learn.
Did you know that? I mean, I’ve told you four times now and you’ve failed to learn.
So perhaps a different question would be how many times does the fire department have to respond before they can conclude Cranick will not learn? How many times do I have to explain this to you before you learn? Are you capable of learning? Is that the fire department’s fault?
My advice, stop feeling disgust and start feeling shame. You’re an idiot, incapable of processing information. Repeatedly you’ve made the same stupid claims. Cranick did this before, so has other residents. None of them learned. Just like you, they keep making the same stupid mistake and trying to blame it on someone else. There is nothing society can do to stop the kind of stupid you and Cranick suffer from, and eventually it will catch up with you.
You have a perverted sense of justice. He paid horribly, but you revel in it. His house burnt to the ground and his animals died. everything he saved and owned is gone. The only way it could have been better for you is if he and the grandkid were in the house. As it is, he got off easy.
You have a twisted sense of right and wrong. How any human can say he and the animals got what they deserved for him not paying 75 bucks is sick.
You keep bringing up the money. He offered to pay it. He offered to pay more. i am sure bystanders would have chipped in to save his home. It was not about the money then was it? It was about teaching him a lesson. How sick do you have to be to buy that was right?
He was already taught the lesson, remember? I told you this happened before. He couldn’t be bothered to learn from it and neither can you. Who’s fault is that?
Cranick also knew about three other houses (and one barn) that burned down, he didn’t learn. You know that because I’ve told you before. Do you see how neither of you are capable of learning? So what’s the point?
He also started the fire. You know that because I’ve told you that before.
I believe it was his son that started the previous fire.
Even after losing his house and pets, I seriously doubt Cranick has learned. Do you think he’s paid the $75 yet? If it wasn’t about the money, why didn’t he pay it last week? Or the year before, or the year before that? Why only after his house is on fire was it suddenly not about the money?
If his grandchildren had been in the house, the FD would have rescued them, then let the house burn. You’ve been told that several times before, and failed to learn.
So in the end, it’s you that has the fucked up sense of right and wrong. Why didn’t this guy pay the $75? Who stopped him?
Count me in with the people who said that they should have put the fire out and sent the homeowner a bill for the services. If he doesn’t pay, do what everyone else does to people who don’t pay: Take him to court and get a judgment against him. Sure, it may be that you can’t collect on the judgment. That’s a failure of the civil court system, not of any Libertarian philosophy.
But is the alternative of standing by while a home in your community burns to the ground a better solution? An economic waste in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the want of a $75 fee just to prove a point and encourage others to pay their fee?