moral obligation is a construct

you might be "morally" obligated to do something, but it doesn't mean everyone is

10/6/2010 1:13:55 PM

To continue comparing, why do you think people would rather purchase insurance then pay for their healthcare out of pocket? The cost. Do the same thing here.


But whatever, fucker probably learned his lesson and now the entire town knows to pay their fucking fee.

Good way to teach that lesson.

10/6/2010 1:14:18 PM

Quote :

"why do you think people would rather purchase insurance then pay for their healthcare out of pocket? The cost. Do the same thing here."

You just argued against yourself. Pay the fee, get the service.

10/6/2010 1:15:01 PM

Quote :

"but then everyone would do that, and there would be no funding"

I still pay for health insurance b/c it's cheaper than paying $texas in case I get in a car wreck. Pretend it isn't life threatening to take out the human life aspect.

10/6/2010 1:15:10 PM

Quote :

"But whatever, fucker probably learned his lesson and now the entire town knows to pay their fucking fee. Good way to teach that lesson"

Quote :

"But whatever, fucker probably learned his lesson and now the entire town knows to pay their fucking fee. Good way to teach that lesson"

Quote :

"But whatever, fucker probably learned his lesson and now the entire town knows to pay their fucking fee. Good way to teach that lesson"

10/6/2010 1:15:24 PM

theres a difference between someones life and someone's property.



[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:18 PM. Reason : damn yall are fast]

10/6/2010 1:17:19 PM

Quote :

"I still pay for health insurance b/c it's cheaper than paying $texas in case I get in a car wreck."

Sure, there will always be people who take the safe route. But if you could pay 10x the fee for actual fire service, it'd be statistically cheaper to do so. My parents have lived in the same house for 28 years and have called the fire department once in that time.

10/6/2010 1:17:35 PM

Quote :

"You just argued against yourself. Pay the fee, get the service."

What I was saying is that put the fire out, charge $40k for the services but also have the $75/yr. service that is obvifuckingously cheaper than paying for it when there's a fire. Hence, leading people to pay it but still getting the service in case they forgot just at a higher rate.

GOT IT? good.

lols

10/6/2010 1:18:07 PM

Quote :

"moral obligation is a construct "

lol

moral nihilist firefighters.

10/6/2010 1:19:59 PM

part of me thinks the firewatchers were smirking the whole time

but i have no reason to think that

10/6/2010 1:21:17 PM

Quote :

"And if they fucking stopped the fire I highly doubt that the news would spread like wildfire and that everyone would stop paying."

I would think(hope) that the homeowners insurance premiums would be directly affected by not having paid the fire station protection fee. So if you don't pay the $75 then your premium goes up, probably for way more than $75/yr. I know I got a decent discount on my homeowners because my house is like 1/10th of a mile away from a fire station.

Quote :

"And how many folks have $5k cash that they can hand out to the FD in an emergency when their house catches on fire. Or what, would they just accept a check? Haha, yea I can write a check for whatever you want, don't mean it will cash."

Assuming their is homeowners insurance, a sizeable payout would be on the horizon.

Quote :

"But whatever, fucker probably learned his lesson and now the entire town knows to pay their fucking fee."

Yes but he lost out and the taxpayers lost out. Instead of the homeowner footing the bill for the diesel/fire truck wear and tear, the firefighters wages, and the water, the taxpayers did so for them to drive out there and watch something burn down (granted, they ensured the safety of the neighbor's property). I'm not really offended that they watched it burn but I just don't think it was the smartest decision.

10/6/2010 1:21:33 PM

So, I guess this is the latest string of firefighters letting homes burn down. This one burnt down with 3 dogs and a cat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71f6B0AqZAU


Hmm... me thinks this firefighting department doesn't own a Dalmatian.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ...]

10/6/2010 1:23:28 PM

Quote :

"Assuming their is homeowners insurance, a sizeable payout would be on the horizon."

Assuming the homeowner's does pay up.

They may well take the stance that he did not adequately protect his property, and use that reason to not cover the loss.

10/6/2010 1:23:55 PM

It's not like the fire department is relying on a $75 fee to keep it afloat. They're funded by the city. The $75 is an insurance premium to people living outside of the city. If you don't pay the insurance, you pay for the services if you choose to use them, as this poor bastard stated over the phone.

10/6/2010 1:24:44 PM

Insurance companies know how to remind someone to pay the elective fees that prop up their livelihood.

Municipalities don't.

10/6/2010 1:26:08 PM

'if nobody out there had paid, we would've had the entire rural community on fire?'

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2010 1:27:48 PM

10/6/2010 1:28:26 PM

Quote :

"What I was saying is that put the fire out, charge $40k for the services but also have the $75/yr. service that is obvifuckingously cheaper than paying for it when there's a fire. Hence, leading people to pay it but still getting the service in case they forgot just at a higher rate. GOT IT? good."

Some places do this. The fees are $5k+ normally. Do you really think they'll squeeze $5k out of the dude who wouldn't pay $75 a year to protect his home though?

I compare this to calling your insurance agent during a flood and asking them to add flood insurance to your home as the waters are rising up around it. They're going to deny you. There is the obvious difference that the firefighters are in a position to possibly stop the damage whereas your insurance agent is not in a position to stop the flood. Consider the possibility, however, that these firefighters leave their city limits to save this home and someone who actually pays for the service needs their assistance. Is it fair for their home or business to burn up while they save Joe Cheapskate's house?

More funding = more trucks and more men. Pay the $75 a year to support them so they can support you in your time of need.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:29 PM. Reason : s]

10/6/2010 1:29:00 PM

^^ until the fire encroached on an area that HAD paid for protection

10/6/2010 1:29:32 PM

Since there were no people trapped in the house, it's really not much different than wrecking your car without collision insurance.

10/6/2010 1:31:02 PM

Quote :

"Do you really think they'll squeeze $5k out of the dude who wouldn't pay $75 a year to protect his home though?"

good point

10/6/2010 1:31:33 PM

sounds like michael vick should have ran his operation in south fulton tennessee

10/6/2010 1:32:10 PM

^^^^yeah fuck all that farmland and crops and such.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : f]

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ^]

10/6/2010 1:32:20 PM

That last guy had 3 dogs and a cat... (depends on if your a dog/cat lover)

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : man, yall are fast]

10/6/2010 1:32:25 PM

So really the trick is to leave your children or some elderly infirm person inside the house so they will actually have to put it out regardless of if you pay the fee.

10/6/2010 1:34:50 PM

will they?

10/6/2010 1:35:32 PM

All I'm saying is, they should rename themselves to "South Fulton Mercenaries" instead of " South Fulton Firefighters" ...

10/6/2010 1:36:49 PM

don't pay no fee
don't get no water

10/6/2010 1:37:20 PM

i'm not advocating the death of household pets

but they really don't matter

10/6/2010 1:37:37 PM

Brought to you by:


Usher's Municipal Fire Service




Gotta pay to play

10/6/2010 1:37:42 PM

If they allowed the option of paying 5k, or whatever, on the spot then they would have to start employing bill collectors/lawyers in order to recoup any money "promised" over the phone. If its a small town fire department that overhead would add up.

Can you even legally enter into a contract when under duress?

10/6/2010 1:44:59 PM

Homeowner lost his property.
Fire Dept spent money to look like ding dongs.

Everybody loses. Brilliant

10/6/2010 1:45:12 PM

^^You can legally hand someone money.

10/6/2010 1:47:22 PM

FUCK THE POLICE FIRE DEPARTMENT

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 1:48 PM. Reason : FUCK YEAH]

10/6/2010 1:48:19 PM

Quote :

""

Why is a dinosaur saying "we humans"

10/6/2010 2:01:18 PM

Quote :

"but then everyone would do that, and there would be no funding"

I disagree. People would still pay the fee. First, if the person paid the firefighters for the price of putting out the fire later on, it wouldn't be news. So it's not like everyone would say, "hey, this person didn't pay the fee, they just paid when the house caught on fire"...because it wouldn't be in the news.

And I'd rather pay $75 a year than a ridiculous amount if my house were to catch on fire. And if the people don't have any money, fuck it, put a lien on their house. If they can't pay, then they'll lose it. Shit, they would have lost it if they didn't put out the fire anyways.

I'm not saying the woman was wrong in not paying (or forgetting to pay) the fee...but I'm saying it's wrong to sit there and watch a house burn down when you have the means to stop it.

10/6/2010 2:10:13 PM

they were the humans of their time

10/6/2010 2:10:15 PM

i only read the first post, but


i remember someone telling me back in the old days they used to have that pay service and if you didn't pay the firefighters wouldn't help you, but in communities where houses were closer together it was a problem because if one house is on fire it could potentially catch on to the next house so firefighters would be forced to put out a non-paying house to prevent a paying house from catching and it was really a poor program. So towns and cities started making firefighters a public service so everyone pays taxes for it and everyone gets protected. Problem solved.

10/6/2010 2:22:15 PM

it used to be that there was some sort of emblem emblazoned on your door threshold that would be proof that you were covered in the event of fire


but this was back in the early days of the country


bottom line is you gotta know the laws of where you live or youre just irresponsible and you cant be shocked when this shit happens

i bet hell pay his insurance next year or GTFO

10/6/2010 2:24:16 PM

Quote :

"Assuming the homeowner's does pay up. They may well take the stance that he did not adequately protect his property, and use that reason to not cover the loss."

Under the system that I and others are proposing they wouldn't be able to because you could opt-in at that last minute for a larger fee. If anything the insurance company should have this stance under the current system and under the large fee system only if you refused the service/fee.

Quote :

"If they allowed the option of paying 5k, or whatever, on the spot then they would have to start employing bill collectors/lawyers in order to recoup any money "promised" over the phone. If its a small town fire department that overhead would add up. Can you even legally enter into a contract when under duress?"

The bill collectors and the lawyers are already on the payroll, as I assume they collect tax bills and prosecute offenders somehow. I don't know the statistics but I doubt it would come up very often enough to need to hire extra collectors and lawyers.

As far as duress is concerned, the fire dept would have to be cause of the duress. If they didn't start the fire or if they didn't "lose" the $75 or mix up the records, then they didn't do anything wrong. If they beat the shit out of him until he agreed to accept the service, then that would be duress. If this were a valid defense, most people would not have to pay for ambulance services since they were "under duress" when they agreed to catch a ride to the hospital.

10/6/2010 2:26:21 PM

So what's the over/under on how long until the homeowner's insurance company sues the town for gross negligence, forcing the town to either settle or fight an expensive legal battle? Great system.

Or maybe the fee-paying neighbor will sue for allowing the fire to spread to his property.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2010 2:33:48 PM

I was kinda hopin they let burn cause a fag or lesbo lived there. No payment on fees works too.

10/6/2010 2:39:36 PM

Wow. So no, the firefighters didn't do anything wrong. But you're at least a little cold if you're laughing at the homeowner who lost her home, all her worldly belongings, and her pets because she forgot to pay a $75 fee. Plus the fact that it seems to me that her homeowners' insurance would deny the claim because she did not pay the elective fee. So basically she is destitute for an instance of forgetfulness.

Then again maybe I'm just more sympathetic because I could see something like that happening to me.

10/6/2010 2:41:34 PM

Didn't the neighbor's house catch fire and have most of it burned down?

Isn't there a pretty good case there for the homeowner to sue the fire department for letting the fire grow to the point where his property was immediately in danger, whereas it would have been fine if they put out the fire or something?

I understand the practical justification of the system, and I understand why people would want an alternative (and I too think this system is outdated and lacks efficiency), but I know myself well enough to see that my thoughts are far too influenced by my personal, emotional desire to justify a way to save a person's house regardless of principle. And that just doesn't have a role in the discussion.

10/6/2010 2:50:25 PM

^^^Ha. If that were the case the fire department would be buying them several mansions to replace their home. Even if they didn't pay the fee.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : -]

10/6/2010 3:05:07 PM

Quote :

"So what's the over/under on how long until the homeowner's insurance company sues the town for gross negligence, forcing the town to either settle or fight an expensive legal battle? Great system. "

I wouldn't take the bet on whether or not the insurance co will sue, but I will for sure take the bet on whether or not they will win.

These people didn't live in the city.
The city was kind enough to offer fire service to them for the low low price of $6.25 per month.
They opted out on the $6.25/month fire service.
And their house caught on fire.

Sounds like an open and shut win for the city if it went to court.

10/6/2010 3:36:05 PM

My eyes see no problems here.

Don't pay, don't play.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2010 3:49:36 PM

Quote :

"The bill collectors and the lawyers are already on the payroll, as I assume they collect tax bills and prosecute offenders somehow. I don't know the statistics but I doubt it would come up very often enough to need to hire extra collectors and lawyers. As far as duress is concerned, the fire dept would have to be cause of the duress. If they didn't start the fire or if they didn't "lose" the $75 or mix up the records, then they didn't do anything wrong. If they beat the shit out of him until he agreed to accept the service, then that would be duress. If this were a valid defense, most people would not have to pay for ambulance services since they were "under duress" when they agreed to catch a ride to the hospital. "

Don't forget to consider that this isn't a handful of houses situated outside of Raleigh city limits. This "city" only has 2,000 residents. Rural free loaders on the system could drag their sustainability down pretty quickly.

I understand you were making an ambulance analogy for a different argument, but any medical field comparison is terrible with their financial situations.

Also, using the word "forgot" is completely biased reporting unless the quotes I have seen are false. This person just didnt feel like paying and thought the fire department wouldn't turn them away.

10/6/2010 3:58:44 PM

WE DON'T NEED NO ROOF!!!!!

10/6/2010 4:11:19 PM

the roof
the roof
the roof is on fire!

10/6/2010 4:12:15 PM