CyberOptic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 What alot of people fail to realize is that most of these departmenrs are subsized by the state. Where I live the state gives them all the equipment they need, and provides upkeep for them. If anyone is curious I live in BFE Kentucky, and am on the local fire department. It would be a cold day in hell before I would let someones house burn down weather or not they paid for it. 74$ does not equal a lifetime. These people need to have a quick life lesson about RESPECTING OTHERS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 they aren't doing it to make a point. they are doing it because then EVERYONE would expect to pay just $75 when they happen to need the service instead of likelyl paying it for decades without ever needing it. It's bascially an insurance policy. You can't insure a valuable against damage AFTER it's been damaged. Seta, they are doing to make a point... that if you don't pay, they wont help. If they didn't want to make a point, they would have done the right thing, and helped the person, as they are the right people to do as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shockz Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 So stupid... should be a send me the bill option if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This is probably the second time in a year this exact same story came up, and my stance still remains. Charge them a steep fee if they have to for outing the fires. It's even more pathetic in this case the firefighters were ordered to be sitting ducks due to stupid political reasons. Goes to show that money is indeed the root of all evil. It really is. People are so selfish, that they won't even help someone out of decency and compassion. They now expect some sort of service or monetary value for any type of effort. This is why nations are crumbling, because no one is helping anyone anymore. Not unless they do something for the other first. Just sick, the mindset that many have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted December 7, 2011 Veteran Share Posted December 7, 2011 Who pays for all the firefighters to put out forest fires? Government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 These people need to have a quick life lesson about RESPECTING OTHERS. Agreed! And that is what they go when their house burnt down: a quick life lesson that fire fighters should be respected and therefor funded properly. It's not worth trying to weasel out of paying $75 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Government But we can't help the 1 person's house who didn't pay $75.. Oh no, because that would be just waaay too wasteful... All I'm reading is, " Babble babble, I'm a selfish money centered creature who can't be a human, because I lack common compassion, decency, and the mindset to understand others suffering and wanting it to not happen, even when the ability to do so is readily available." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I don't get it. Why don't they go ahead and put the fire out, then bill them for it? they would end up paying at least $100 for gasoline $200 for vehical maintence a few thousand for the wages of six or more fire fights then thousands more the firefighters health insurance, workman comp.. etc to plus the $75 yearly subscription fee. all for people living in trailer. Who cares who would be paying for it! Who pays for all the firefighters to put out forest fires? It shouldn't be about money. As Seta said, Fires are a rare thing. So who cares if they didn't pay $75, it isn't something that would be abused. Would you expect a off duty police officer to say he wants $30 bucks to stop you from being held up at knife point by a robber, if one had walked by while off duty and it was happening to you? No. There are things we expect from those in certain positions and walks of life, because they are able to HELP another. Off Duty doctors should charge someone choking before doing administering the hiemlich maneuver? YES IT WOULD BE ABUSED. YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I SAID AT ALL. THEY WOULD ABUSE THE SYSTEM BY PAYING THE $75 WHEN THEY HAVE AN EMERGANCY RATHER THAN FOR YEARS OR DECADES WITHOUT NEEDING IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-KJ Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The twist here is that one of the firemen set fire to their property to teach others a lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 they would end up paying at least $100 for gasoline $200 for vehical maintence a few thousand for the wages of six or more fire fights then thousands more the firefighters health insurance, workman comp.. etc to plus the $75 yearly subscription fee. all for people living in trailer. YES IT WOULD BE ABUSED. YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I SAID AT ALL. THEY WOULD ABUSE THE SYSTEM BY PAYING THE $75 WHEN THEY HAVE AN EMERGANCY RATHER THAN FOR YEARS OR DECADES WITHOUT NEEDING IT. Seta, NO IT WOULDN'T! THATS LIKE SAYING PEOPLE WILL ABUSE THE AMBULANCES FROM HOSPITALS IF THEY DIDN'T CHARGE UPFRONT... WAIT, THEY DON'T! HOSPITALS WILL SEND ALL THE HELP TO YOU BEFORE THEY EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME! WOW, YET THEY ARE CONSTANTLY FUNDED! THEY BILL AFTERWARDS! THEY HELP FIRST! WE CAN ALL TYPE IN FULL CAPS, BUT ONLY I CAN MAKE SENSE, AS APPARENTLY, I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO ISN'T HELL BENT ON FOCUSING ON MONEY! Sheesh, to you just ignore everything except the all mighty dollar???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted December 7, 2011 Veteran Share Posted December 7, 2011 Because it is the right thing to do. It's called human compassion. Really? Is it that hard of a concept? I'm not a trained medic, but if someone is hit by a car, and I don't try to help them, I can be found guilty for not aiding them... So the same should apply to those who are firefighters. If you are a fire fighter, you go into the business to protect people. It shouldn't be about money. But hell, if you have this hard of a concept understanding human decency and compassion, this is already a lost cause try and reason with you guys. So ****ing unbelievable... No one is going to abuse a the fire fighters system. People don't just set **** on fire for the hell of it, and if they do, that is a whole other issue for the police. But no, lets just only help those who can afford the help, cause the is the right way to do anything... based off of class and wealth.... I seriously hope none of you guys are supposed "Christians", because if so, you are ignoring EVERYTHING that is basically what Jesus preached..... Compassion sounds nice, and it is, but it isn't sustainable. They can't afford to set the precedent that it would set, unfortunately. The last sentence there is a tough call, because they made sure the people were OK, and Jesus wouldn't have been worried about the material possessions either. He also preached personal responsiblity, paying "to Caesar what is Caesar's", indicating the taxes needed to keep the government/systems in place. I think this type of "mass fee in exchange for a public service" falls under that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The twist here is that one of the firemen set fire to their property to teach others a lesson. Lol, that would be the kicker huh :p If we make fire fighting a lucrative business... what wouldn't be a incentive to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But we can't help the 1 person's house who didn't pay $75.. Oh no, because that would be just waaay too wasteful... All I'm reading is, " Babble babble, I'm a selfish money centered creature who can't be a human, because I lack common compassion, decency, and the mindset to understand others suffering and wanting it to not happen, even when the ability to do so is readily available." The problem isn't this one person not paying the $75 fee. It's when EVERYONE ELSE finds out they they will still be helped even IF they didn't pay. Let's saying that this fire department is servicing about 1000 homes in over a huge stretch of nothing. That's $75,000 that this fire department WILL NOT HAVE because people will only pay a measly $75 when they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Compassion sounds nice, and it is, but it isn't sustainable. They can't afford to set the precedent that it would set, unfortunately. The last sentence there is a tough call, because they made sure the people were OK, and Jesus wouldn't have been worried about the material possessions either. He also preached personal responsiblity, paying "to Caesar what is Caesar's", indicating the taxes needed to keep the government/systems in place. I think this type of "mass fee in exchange for a public service" falls under that category. But still watching someones house burn while you have the full ability to stop it, is a pretty dick move, especially over a measly $75. What are the basic simple things most humans have agreed people need in order to survive again? Oh Ya, its Food/Shelter/Love..... Jesus gave people free food, which they should have been buying from the markets right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Seta, NO IT WOULDN'T! THATS LIKE SAYING PEOPLE WILL ABUSE THE AMBULANCES FROM HOSPITALS IF THEY DIDN'T CHARGE UPFRONT... WAIT, THEY DON'T! HOSPITALS WILL SEND ALL THE HELP TO YOU BEFORE THEY EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME! WOW, YET THEY ARE CONSTANTLY FUNDED! THEY BILL AFTERWARDS! THEY HELP FIRST! WE CAN ALL TYPE IN FULL CAPS, BUT ONLY I CAN MAKE SENSE, AS APPARENTLY, I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO ISN'T HELL BENT ON FOCUSING ON MONEY! Sheesh, to you just ignore everything except the all mighty dollar???? They can afford to bill afterwards at hospitals because they charge people their entire bill, not just $75. Your idea of not funding the FD and paying after the fact would make sense if they charged the victims 10's of thousands of dollars or whatever the total cost of funding the department for the rescue, fire outage, etc was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Arrgghhh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Seta, NO IT WOULDN'T! THATS LIKE SAYING PEOPLE WILL ABUSE THE AMBULANCES FROM HOSPITALS IF THEY DIDN'T CHARGE UPFRONT... WAIT, THEY DON'T! HOSPITALS WILL SEND ALL THE HELP TO YOU BEFORE THEY EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME! WOW, YET THEY ARE CONSTANTLY FUNDED! THEY BILL AFTERWARDS! THEY HELP FIRST! WE CAN ALL TYPE IN FULL CAPS, BUT ONLY I CAN MAKE SENSE, AS APPARENTLY, I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO ISN'T HELL BENT ON FOCUSING ON MONEY! Sheesh, to you just ignore everything except the all mighty dollar???? hospitals aren't run by the government here. Fire departments are. Governments and their services have their jurisdictions. There's a reason why an iowa cop isn't allowed to pull someone over in nebraska. Hospitals might get together and make a little map with other hospitals and say "this is our district and that is yours" but it's nothing legally binding and the hopitals actually having ways of billing these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The problem isn't this one person not paying the $75 fee. It's when EVERYONE ELSE finds out they they will still be helped even IF they didn't pay. Let's saying that this fire department is servicing about 1000 homes in over a huge stretch of nothing. That's $75,000 that this fire department WILL NOT HAVE because people will only pay a measly $75 when they have to. So you won't save 1 person who you have the full ability to, over some hypothetical situation where NO ONE pays the fire department anything ever? Good job and reasoning there.... very solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richteralan Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But still watching someones house burn while you have the full ability to stop it, is a pretty dick move, especially over a measly $75. What are the basic simple things most humans have agreed people need in order to survive again? Oh Ya, its Food/Shelter/Love..... Jesus gave people free food, which they should have been buying from the markets right? Well, can we taste the water and it turns diesel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They can afford to bill afterwards at hospitals because they charge people their entire bill, not just $75. Your idea of not funding the FD and paying after the fact would make sense if they charged the victims 10's of thousands of dollars or whatever the total cost of funding the department for the rescue, fire outage, etc was. So they can charge them more, or even just $75. No reason to let it burn. You just answered it. Now you should stop trying to back up why you are so selfish and devoid of compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Jesus gave people free food, which they should have been buying from the markets right? Bad argument, because Jesus was a superhero that could spawn food out of midair. If a normal person gave away something for free, they would be eating that expense. If the FD gave away their services, they would be eating millions of dollars in loses. That is not sustainable and just not logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Well, can we taste the water and it turns diesel? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 So they can charge them more, or even just $75. No reason to let it burn. You just answered it. Now you should stop trying to back up why you are so selfish and devoid of compassion. So you really think the people who were too selfish to pay the $75 fee are going to pay a 10's of thousands of dollar fee after the fact?.....no, the would stiff the FD and not pay that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richteralan Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Huh? Such a simple analogy yet so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted December 7, 2011 Veteran Share Posted December 7, 2011 But still watching someones house burn while you have the full ability to stop it, is a pretty dick move, especially over a measly $75. What are the basic simple things most humans have agreed people need in order to survive again? Oh Ya, its Food/Shelter/Love..... Jesus gave people free food, which they should have been buying from the markets right? I know it sounds bad. If I had been one of the firefighters, I probably wouldn't have been able to resist doing something to try and help, even if it cost me my job and possibly my life, if I got injured. Plus, legally, they had no right to be there, since the homeowners hadn't paid for the service and therefore granted them access. Let's say the firefighters went on anyway, and happened to damage a car outside the house, the homeowners could have possibly sued them for the damage even if it was on the way to putting out the house fire. Sounds crazy but it's the kind of thing that happens these days. Look, the world would be a great place if we could all be compassionate 100% of the time, if the funding for these things just magically appeared out of nowhere, and if everyone happily did what they were supposed to do and took responsibility for things. But it doesn't work that way. The people even admitted they took the risk, and when you take a risk, sometimes you suffer the consequences. It's a hard lesson learned, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts