5 ms·

I know I'm probably the only one thinking like this, but I find this whole concept - starting from "voluntary" payment right through to "watching their houses b

by Udo 16y ago

I know I'm probably the only one thinking like this, but I find this whole concept - starting from "voluntary" payment right through to "watching their houses burn so they can learn their lesson" - incredibly perverse and morally bankrupt to the extreme. If your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose. If you're a firefighter equipped to deal with disaster, you do your damn best to do your fucking job whenever the opportunity presents itself. It would actually be less cruel if there was no local fire brigade at all. What kind of asshole do you have to be if you can just sit there watching a family's home burn down while doing nothing but make pompous remarks?

gaius 16y ago
If you're a firefighter equipped to deal with disaster, you do your damn best to do your fucking job whenever the opportunity presents itself It's easy to call on other people to risk life and limb. 'Cos it's their "job" right? Which they volunteered to do for the benefit of the community, of which this person had voluntarily opted out by not paying his fair share. Remember community implies obligations as well as benefits.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nodata 16y ago
Well one alternative might be to apologise to the fire-fighters, and agree to pay them a lot of money - way over the missed premiums - to put the fire out. This would help you, because you would otherwise lose way more money instead, and it would help them, because they could sidestep the claim that "if everybody did this...". You could even say that upfront payers get priority over one-off payers.
- rythie 16y ago
  What's your view of way over the missed premiums? 10x, 100x? (Assuming 1/100 chance over 20 years - which is very high) $75 over 20 years is $1500 So they are looking at committing $15,000 or even $150,000 if their house burns down. Now, bare in mind this person wouldn't even pay $75 so how are you going to get even $15k off them let alone $150k
  - nodata 16y ago
    Well since this pricing scheme doesn't already exist, it's up to the fire-fighters to create it. The price can be wrong, it doesn't matter, the point is that the price gives the fire-fighters the opportunity to save the house without compromising their principles. After they save the house, they can then worry about whether the price was a fair one or not, and publicise this. People would then realise what a good deal the premiums are.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
What kind of asshole do you have to be to refuse to pay $6.25 a month and then expect to free ride on a service the rest of the neighborhood paid for?
- gaius 16y ago
  Hell, a beer costs more than that in some towns.
- elbrodeur 16y ago
  It's demonstrated in the article and elsewhere that they weren't expecting a free ride. Again, there are numerous examples of systems working where uninsured people pay AT COST. Uninsured? An ambulance ride is really expensive. Uninsured? A broken leg is really expensive. But you will still get treatment and you will eventually pay the price.
protomyth 16y ago
That is a normal human reaction. Compassion for others in need is generally the default state for people in an civilized society. but... Public services cost money. Even with donated labor, there is equipment, training, storage, certifications, and insurance to pay for. A lot of places hide these cost in mandatory taxes. Some rural places cannot do that, so they take fees paid by local landowners. Unfortunately, some people opt-out and diminish the service for all others. It could be regarded as selfish and unneighborly behavior. In this instance, it had consequences. I could have some sympathy if the $75 was more than they could pay, but it clearly wasn't. Would it have been better if the firefighters had tried to save the house and bill for the full service. If the laws allowed it maybe, but their is no provision to pay for something that is not requested and the firefighters might be held liable for all damages. Not to mention problems with their insurance if someone were to get hurt. "It would actually be less cruel if there was no local fire brigade at all." - No. The local fire brigade provides a valuable service for a community and probably has saved a number of lives. People opting-out should not ruin something for everyone. In the end, this is a case of a family that didn't band together with the community to provide a valuable service to all and are now suffering for that decision.
- Udo 16y ago
  Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So my childish instinct says, the moral thing in this case would be to just bill the family a few thousand $. But I guess that approach lacks the appropriate toughness. It's probably a cultural thing.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    No, I don't think you are wrong on the just bill the family. If there were some framework in the law to do it, I would be all for that, but there really isn't. Plus, you have the additional problem of liability for both injury and damage. It isn't a matter of toughness. I grew up in North Dakota and you help your neighbor. The problem is your neighbor didn't help you to begin with and there is no way that the "Good Samaritan" approach won't land you in more trouble. I really think a lot of the reporting on the incident is not focused on why the family did not pitch in with their neighbors and pay the fee to insure service. Was it just selfishness or was their a financial reason?

by Udo 16y ago

gaius 16y ago

If you're a firefighter equipped to deal with disaster, you do your damn best to do your fucking job whenever the opportunity presents itself It's easy to call on other people to risk life and limb. 'Cos it's their "job" right? Which they volunteered to do for the benefit of the community, of which this person had voluntarily opted out by not paying his fair share. Remember community implies obligations as well as benefits.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nodata 16y ago

Well one alternative might be to apologise to the fire-fighters, and agree to pay them a lot of money - way over the missed premiums - to put the fire out. This would help you, because you would otherwise lose way more money instead, and it would help them, because they could sidestep the claim that "if everybody did this...". You could even say that upfront payers get priority over one-off payers.

rythie 16y ago
What's your view of way over the missed premiums? 10x, 100x? (Assuming 1/100 chance over 20 years - which is very high) $75 over 20 years is $1500 So they are looking at committing $15,000 or even $150,000 if their house burns down. Now, bare in mind this person wouldn't even pay $75 so how are you going to get even $15k off them let alone $150k
- nodata 16y ago
  Well since this pricing scheme doesn't already exist, it's up to the fire-fighters to create it. The price can be wrong, it doesn't matter, the point is that the price gives the fire-fighters the opportunity to save the house without compromising their principles. After they save the house, they can then worry about whether the price was a fair one or not, and publicise this. People would then realise what a good deal the premiums are.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

What kind of asshole do you have to be to refuse to pay $6.25 a month and then expect to free ride on a service the rest of the neighborhood paid for?

gaius 16y ago
Hell, a beer costs more than that in some towns.
elbrodeur 16y ago
It's demonstrated in the article and elsewhere that they weren't expecting a free ride. Again, there are numerous examples of systems working where uninsured people pay AT COST. Uninsured? An ambulance ride is really expensive. Uninsured? A broken leg is really expensive. But you will still get treatment and you will eventually pay the price.

protomyth 16y ago

That is a normal human reaction. Compassion for others in need is generally the default state for people in an civilized society. but... Public services cost money. Even with donated labor, there is equipment, training, storage, certifications, and insurance to pay for. A lot of places hide these cost in mandatory taxes. Some rural places cannot do that, so they take fees paid by local landowners. Unfortunately, some people opt-out and diminish the service for all others. It could be regarded as selfish and unneighborly behavior. In this instance, it had consequences. I could have some sympathy if the $75 was more than they could pay, but it clearly wasn't. Would it have been better if the firefighters had tried to save the house and bill for the full service. If the laws allowed it maybe, but their is no provision to pay for something that is not requested and the firefighters might be held liable for all damages. Not to mention problems with their insurance if someone were to get hurt. "It would actually be less cruel if there was no local fire brigade at all." - No. The local fire brigade provides a valuable service for a community and probably has saved a number of lives. People opting-out should not ruin something for everyone. In the end, this is a case of a family that didn't band together with the community to provide a valuable service to all and are now suffering for that decision.

Udo 16y ago
Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So my childish instinct says, the moral thing in this case would be to just bill the family a few thousand $. But I guess that approach lacks the appropriate toughness. It's probably a cultural thing.
- protomyth 16y ago
  No, I don't think you are wrong on the just bill the family. If there were some framework in the law to do it, I would be all for that, but there really isn't. Plus, you have the additional problem of liability for both injury and damage. It isn't a matter of toughness. I grew up in North Dakota and you help your neighbor. The problem is your neighbor didn't help you to begin with and there is no way that the "Good Samaritan" approach won't land you in more trouble. I really think a lot of the reporting on the incident is not focused on why the family did not pitch in with their neighbors and pay the fee to insure service. Was it just selfishness or was their a financial reason?