Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[+Neyht Subscriber²]

They should at least give them the option to pay on the spot :/

I would have to agree with this. In that situation the firemen were there. What would he have to pay for them to put the fire out? It's probably not going to be a small amount.

Of course, the firemen are their to make sure that everyone is out of the building alive, and that no other buildings catch fire.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

ridiculous story is ridiculous!! OMG, that just beats all I've ever heard! Note to self: never EVER EVER EVER EVER move to that part of the country! PERIOD. :|

[ArialBlue]

Your poor attempt at trolling with your totally ignorant comments really doesn't even deserve a response, but I should point out to you that you don't seem to know the first thing about America.

You are confusing trolling with me being ****ed at America's social culture and political problems.

Sure the are some US citizens which regard "Capitalist" as a dirty word, but many still do not and support such practices as highlighted here.

EDIT: Here is another comment with the same ****ed off mindset you regard as trolling:

Am I the only one who noticed that It is easy to distinguish the Europeans from the Americans in this thread?

[Richteralan]

I would have to agree with this. In that situation the firemen were there. What would he have to pay for them to put the fire out? It's probably not going to be a small amount.

Of course, the firemen are their to make sure that everyone is out of the building alive, and that no other buildings catch fire.

And again, then if it is possible to pay on the spot, then nobody will pay the yearly fee.

http://www.kfvs12.co...efighters-watch

She doesn't even have insurance, which is required by the law.

Good for her.

[Astra.Xtreme]

So in other words... a government run insurance company. Interesting coming from you.

Why does it matter? Everybody on this planet that are getting fire department services are paying for it. Why should these people be an exception to it?

I provided the insurance example because that's exactly how it works in that industry. If you total your car but don't have coverage (or not enough coverage), they aren't going to help you. Period.

[majortom1981]

http://www.kfvs12.co...efighters-watch

That article lists this

"Bell says the South Fulton Fire Department came out, but did nothing. She says she understands why. She says none of the trailers near hers qualify for insurance. So, according to City rules - they are not eligible to pay a fee to receive rural fire protection service. She says she knew if there was a fire, she would be out of luck."

So the article you guys are listing to defend the fireman you all should read.

It states they could not pay the fee legally to even get the firemen to help. The dept should be sued. They showed up knowing the people were not even allowed to pay the fee by law and stood there. They showed up they should fight the fire.

[shockz]

Why does it matter? Everybody on this planet that are getting fire department services are paying for it. Why should these people be an exception to it?

It shouldn't even be an option, it should be included in rent or property taxes, by law. I'm sure the city loses a ton more not having a house that taxes will be payed from, then to get stingy about a $75 yearly fire fee.

[ArialBlue]

And again, then if it is possible to pay on the spot, then nobody will pay the yearly fee.

I don't understand this.

This is like healthcare insurance in America.

It is cheaper to make payments monthly nad have insurance.

[shockz]

If you total your car but don't have coverage (or not enough coverage), they aren't going to help you. Period.

If you total your home, you have home insurance to fix it.

[nubs]

Sorry but that is ****ing bull****. They need to get off their high horses and do their jobs. They can collect the fee afterwards.

Like paying for insurance after you are sick? This is completely appropriate. If you are too stupid to pay for fire protection you are too stupid to own a house.

[count0nz]

This is Plane Insane... Here in New Zealand its The Firefighters Are payed threw Tax etc..

We had a house fire and the Firefighters Where there pretty quickly..

So Glad we don't have Insane Polocy's like that.

[vladmphoto]

Well this is a lesson learned. In retrospect, that family paid hundreds of thousands of $ to save $75. I don't think this is sickening at all. The firefighters ensured that humans were safe and letting the house burn to the ground was a business decision. The fact is that the family knew this would happen when they decided to be cheap ******** and skimp out on the yearly fee everybody in the community knows about. You don't get to expect compassion for being cheap and stupid.

[+Neyht Subscriber²]

And again, then if it is possible to pay on the spot, then nobody will pay the yearly fee.

No, your absolutely right. The pay up front price has to be big enough for the people to consider the yearly fee.

...and not giving them that option is a very bad business decision.

[argonite]

I can understand the strong feelings towards the firefighters. If I were there as a firefighter, I wouldn't be able to stand there and watch a house burn down.

I also understand the financial standpoint. Things aren't free. Saving your life is free (well, not really, but it's something people would do for free), but not your property, and not the services to your property.

However neither side seems to be addressing the issues (or at least ignoring the issues) that the other side brings up.

People arguing the firefighters are immoral, please address this issue:

- How are you going to prevent abuse of the system, thus an underfunded city fire dept, in places where city taxes are not collected? Keep in mind that while morality is free, the equipment/maintenance is actually quite expensive.

People arguing for the system based on financial sustainability, please address this issue:

- If you were a firefighter, how could you justify internally not putting out a fire that you had already driven out to? Keep in mind that you already have the manpower and resources to put out the fire, and you're already there.

[majortom1981]

And again, then if it is possible to pay on the spot, then nobody will pay the yearly fee.

She doesn't even have insurance, which is required by the law.

Good for her.

NO the article state she is not allowed to get insurance. Since she cant get insurance the law states she cannot pay the fee. So she was not allowed to even pay the fee if she wanted to which is dumb and she should sue the county and the firedept.

On top of that the firedept taunted her by sending the firedept there and just standing there.

[Astra.Xtreme]

It shouldn't even be an option, it should be included in rent or property taxes, by law. I'm sure the city loses a ton more not having a house that taxes will be payed from, then to get stingy about a $75 yearly fire fee.

Sure but if you've read what others have said in this thread, they don't enforce property taxes in that area. And it's not uncommon for other parts of the world to be like that.

If you total your home, you have home insurance to fix it.

Yeah and guess what? You have to pay for that... What's your point?

[CyberOptic]

I can understand the strong feelings towards the firefighters. If I were there as a firefighter, I wouldn't be able to stand there and watch a house burn down.

I also understand the financial standpoint. Things aren't free. Saving your life is free (well, not really, but it's something people would do for free), but not your property, and not the services to your property.

However neither side seems to be addressing the issues (or at least ignoring the issues) that the other side brings up.

People arguing the firefighters are immoral, please address this issue:

- How are you going to prevent abuse of the system, thus an underfunded city fire dept, in places where city taxes are not collected? Keep in mind that while morality is free, the equipment/maintenance is actually quite expensive.

People arguing for the system based on financial sustainability, please address this issue:

- If you were a firefighter, how could you justify internally not putting out a fire that you had already driven out to? Keep in mind that you already have the manpower and resources to put out the fire, and you're already there.

To prove that this country is ran on dollars, and that we dont give two ****s about another person, but we want that all mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Sir Topham Hatt]

I thought it was just the UK who made up stupid taxes and fees?

[argonite]

To prove that this country is ran on dollars, and that we dont give two ****s about another person, but we want that all mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'm not quite sure what position you're arguing for at the moment. I think it's the "against subscription-based fire dept" in which case, please address the question assigned to you.

[Seizure1990]

The family knew the rules, and said so themselves. They didn't think it could ever happen to them. It did.

It sucks, but they should have paid the $75.

On one hand, it seems cruel to do it this way... on the other hand, what the mayor said is valid - The Fire department needs funding, and if they don't get it, then they can't save ANYBODY'S home.

[shockz]

Yeah and guess what? You have to pay for that... What's your point?

I pay for fire protection through operating levies and taxes. Why TN doesn't do that is beyond me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Seizure1990]

I pay for fire protection through operating levies and taxes. Why TN doesn't do that is beyond me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You think that filtering money through general taxes into the fire department is gonna work as well as a direct "insurance" payment? Half the money would end up lining politician's pockets, and the other half would go to retarded funding projects.

Besides, $75 is $75. Arguing how it should be payed is semantics, and has no relevance.

[shockz]

You think that filtering money through general taxes into the fire department is gonna work as well as a direct "insurance" payment? Half the money would end up lining politician's pockets, and the other half would go to retarded funding projects.

Works fine in my city and county. We've never had to deny someone from putting a fire out.

[HSoft]

The family knew the rules, and said so themselves. They didn't think it could ever happen to them. It did.

It sucks, but they should have paid the $75.

On one hand, it seems cruel to do it this way... on the other hand, what the mayor said is valid - The Fire department needs funding, and if they don't get it, then they can't save ANYBODY'S home.

Fairly much this.

Giving them the option to just pay when it happens isn't an option either as again, nobody would pay until something actually happened.

They knew the risks, they gambled, they lost.

I pay a yearly fee to the fire department and it's a lot more than $75.

[matt4pack]

You are confusing trolling with me being ****ed at America's social culture and political problems.

Sure the are some US citizens which regard "Capitalist" as a dirty word, but many still do not and support such practices as highlighted here.

EDIT: Here is another comment with the same ****ed off mindset you regard as trolling:

Am I the only one who noticed that It is easy to distinguish the Europeans from the Americans in this thread?

You Europeans pay for fire service as well. It's included in your taxes and guess what? If you don't pay your taxes you get fined on top of the taxes or go to jail unless it's Italy or Greece where it's ok to not pay taxes.

Yeah you Europeans are so compassionate compared to us evil Americans.

One thing I will say is that this should not be a flat fee for everyone. The amount should be based on the size of the home so it's actually fair for everyone.