What is wrong with the world???? (in Off-topic)
How could they just watch it burn?
Complete crap, disgusting way to run a fire station!
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the firefighters in this case. Firefighters (in this area, anyway) only put out fires within the city limits. If you'd like that service outside the city limits, you have to pay a $75 opt-in fee.
If they had put out the fire, the fee itself would be pointless as they'd be "guilted" into putting out every fire.
Now, if they had charged, say, a $1000 fee for the expense in coming out there, I think that would have been more appropriate.
October 6 2010 11:52 AM EDT
I think it's pretty disgusting and indicative of what kind of people those firefighters are that they just watched someone's home burn down. I would have paid their damn fee if it came down to it, if I was one of the firefighters there. Firefighters are portrayed as these macho, super-competent, all-american heroes but these guys acted in a way completely contrary to that.
October 6 2010 12:06 PM EDT
Question: was this a privately owned, for profit fire station?
Money, the most powerful tool in the world. And an unpaid bill is an unpaid bill. Sucks for buddy, bet his pyro child might of learned something.
October 6 2010 12:14 PM EDT
It's insane that there isn't a system to charge the person 20-times the annual fee for saving a home that's not on the list. Obviously they don't do it because no one would pay the annual fee, but this really should be done as a county contract rather than a per-house charge.
Given what happened, I hope the judge drops the felony assault charge down to misdemeanor.
October 6 2010 12:28 PM EDT
He says in the call he offered to pay whatever, but that he was told it was too late.
That's utter bull. I don't see how they think the failure to pay an annual fee justifies their action (or lack thereof,) and I don't see why anyone would defend firefighters who would simply stand and watch someone's house burn to the ground while defending the one beside it.
October 6 2010 3:40 PM EDT
I completely agree with the firefighters; if the homeowner didn't pay his bill, then he doesn't receive the service. It works the same was as electricity or medical care.
However, I wonder why the fire company didn't accept his offer to pay the full expenses of the company in exchange for protection from the fire. They have nothing to lose from that, right?
October 6 2010 3:49 PM EDT
But it doesn't work the same way as the others. If you can't pay for emergency medical, it's STILL provided.
Because of the way they monetized their services, the pets died in the fire. Granted, they're not people, but it still constitutes an emergency service.
October 6 2010 3:51 PM EDT
To follow up, in the case of emergency medical, you'd get an astronomical bill after the fact. This could have been handled in the same manner, not that it's ideal.
We've got a county firehouse right on the border of the city limits. It's a long standing joke that they'd watch a house across the street burn... not so funny now
October 6 2010 4:16 PM EDT
Not after the new health care bill with mandatory medical insurance. If you don't have insurance, the ER won't treat you. Medical insurance is just like the fire insurance given by the fire department.
The problem with an astronomical bill after the incident is that many people are unable to pay for it, so the providers are left footing the bill. They then pass that cost on to everybody else.
October 6 2010 5:19 PM EDT
"Whats wrong with the free market fire fighting?", should be the topic.
I can see how that $75 fee should be paid, but when the cost of the place burning down to the ground got tenfold economic and social cost, then the policy makes no sense. Individual and society loses.
October 6 2010 5:25 PM EDT
This isn't free market fire fighting. Saying there was a law that prevented them from helping implies that it was a public fire department. The question should be what is wrong with this city's/county's laws.
i mark titan with a kick me sign instead of garroting him! ; )
"He lost... three dogs and a cat"
This enrages me the most about this.
October 6 2010 6:28 PM EDT
If you read this article on Yahoo, it says he first tried to put the fire out with a garden hose, then called 911. That's why the pets died. The first thing you do is evacuate. That's common sense to me.
This is not a unique situation. Recently out here in California, one if the islands in the delta had a fire going. They don't have a fire department nor do they have a contract for the services. The nearest department came out to make sure there were no injuries, but otherwise just let the place burn.
Here's a question: Why were you burning garbage and why close enough to your home to catch fire? Did you refuse to pay the garbage bill too?
There's a lack of personal responsibility here.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0036je">What is wrong with the world????</a>