• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Firefighters let a home burn down because $75 fee wasn't paid!

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fire department is retarded for not charging a large fee for non-customer services.
They could easily have a document stating it is $10,000 for their services, offering it to people on the spot.

Ambulances and life flight charge huge fees, but you don't even have to sign anything.
 
edro said:
The fire department is retarded for not charging a large fee for non-customer services.
They could easily have a document stating it is $10,000 for their services, offering it to people on the spot.

Ambulances and life flight charge huge fees, but you don't even have to sign anything.
Click to expand...

Medical fees get reimbursed by insurance, or they send you a bill. I don't know of any insurance plans that reimburse fire/police departments.

I still don't know why the county doesn't charge a fee/tax to the residents for mutual aid protection.
 
AstroManLuca said:
If you don't have health insurance and you are badly hurt, they'll still bring you to a hospital and fix you up, then mail you the bill.

Don't see why this should have been different.
Click to expand...

This.

Whoever decided to not help that family out is fucking retarded and deserves to lose his job.
 
Narmer said:
There are also volunteer police officers. They are auxillary cops. Also, who do you think pays for the equipment in the "volunteer" fire department? This is basic government service.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to stop you right there seeing as how you know nothing about volunteer fire departments. :colbert:

Volunteer fire departments buy their equipment using donations and money from fundraisers. Our local volunteer FD raised a couple hundred thousand dollars to buy a new truck.

Also, the city has NO authority WHATSOEVER to tax people who live outside the city limits. They are offering a service, simple as that. If people pay for it, they will go out of their way to accommodate them.

This wasn't a matter of life and death. Had it been, like others have said, I'm sure they would have gotten his dumb ass out of the house, and then let it burn to the ground.

Firefighting is NOT a basic government service. Only large cities have fire departments paid for by the city, and they ONLY SERVE THE CITY. In this case, this fire department was going above and beyond the call of duty by even offering this service to begin with.
 
dabuddha said:
This.

Whoever decided to not help that family out is fucking retarded and deserves to lose his job.
Click to expand...

You should look into what the rate of people not paying for medical expenses is. That's part of the reason why hospital charges are so much, they need to cover the losses from those that don't pay.
If they base payments on a fee for when a fire breaks out and not a yearly fee then what happens when one year there aren't any fires? How do they fund everything for that year?
I'm surprised that the home insurance policy doesn't require them to pay for fire protection.
 
JTsyo said:
You should look into what the rate of people not paying for medical expenses is. That's part of the reason why hospital charges are so much, they need to cover the losses from those that don't pay.
If they base payments on a fee for when a fire breaks out and not a yearly fee then what happens when one year there aren't any fires? How do they fund everything for that year?
I'm surprised that the home insurance policy doesn't require them to pay for fire protection.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the home insurance policy needing to require it. On the flipside, I wonder how it would have all played out if someone had died in the fire.
 
What if he hadn't paid his property taxes, would they let robbers rape his wife? This is negligence.

What should have happened is they put out the fire, then send him a bill for the entire cost of the rescue.

Firefighters should be charged with animal cruelty for letting them cook inside.
 
I am all for rules, but maybe they should add .. you pay an extra $15,000 if you haven't made your yearly payment, and you sign on the spot, or something?
 
I don't want to read through this whole thread, but I understand why the FC couldn't let him pay the $75 on the spot. Still, it seems like they could have made him agree to pay the costs of fighting the fire with the house as collateral. It makes no sense to just let a house burn down.
 
I can honestly say, I don't know what side of the fence I sit on for this one.
I'm willing to bet it wasn't EASY for the FFs to just sit there and watch it burn, but legally and technically they were told DO NOT PUT IT OUT. They were really between a rock and a hard place.

That being said, when it really comes down to it, it is nothing but the home owners fault isn't it? He knew the risks of not paying the bill. Gambled and lost.

I guess I side with the FFs in this case, but it does seem incredibly harsh.
 
destey said:
What if he hadn't paid his property taxes, would they let robbers rape his wife? This is negligence.

What should have happened is they put out the fire, then send him a bill for the entire cost of the rescue.

Firefighters should be charged with animal cruelty for letting them cook inside.
Click to expand...

If you don't pay proerpty taxes, there are mechanisms in place for the city to get their money back (collections, plus interest, plus fees etc etc). They WILL get their property taxes or you WONT have a house.
 
Those of you saying the FFs should be charged etc are being stupid. They FFs had orders and laws in place to NOT put out the fire in such an instance. They are covered and did their job as it is supposed to be done.

However, the city may be in trouble for creating and enforcing these laws.
 
Zorkorist said:
There could have been a kid inside.

Isn't that the arguement we get from Government all the time? Think of the children?

Stop paying them, and look where that arguement goes.

-John
Click to expand...

There wasn't a damn kid in there. You are assuming that the FD would allow a kid to burn just the same as they let property burn. It was property burning not kids, get over it. This is idiotic.
 
Zorkorist said:
The city was paid good money, by its residents to put out fires, not stand around and watch them.

Only some Government Prick could decide, we are not fighting this fire. Let his house burn down.

The cities residents would have said fight the fire... it's the only reason they pay their money...

FIGHT THE FUCKING FIRE.

-John
Click to expand...

Mentally disabled boy, these people were not residents of the city. Why should they risk their lives on a house that was already a total loss? And the government prick is someone that the home owner voted for and agreed with this law for 20 years.

Go away, this is a topic beyond your comprehension.
 
I actually read the article, so for anyone that didn't, here are the important points you missed:

- The city FD that refused to put the fire out is not the same as the town of residence of the person whose house burned down
- There were no people inside
- Fire coverage is offered as an annual fee, as a courtesy by the city to the town residents
- The guy's pets died in the fire

Of all of that, I agree with the FF response, other than letting the animals burn. There's not enough in the story to know whether the animals were dead before they even made it out there, though.

This town has no fire coverage. The neighboring city offers it for a fee. The resident did not take them up on that offer. The resident could be furious at his town for not offering fire coverage, but last I checked your neighboring city has no responsibility to cut you in on its services that its taxpayers fund.

The resident just had to pay a $75 fee for coverage. Shit, that's a steal. I'm willing to bet that more than $75 of my annual property taxes go to my city's FD every year.

I do fault the FD if they would not accept reimbursement of their actual costs to put the fire out, but the story doesn't provide enough facts to discern that. It says the resident offered $75 and was denied, but nothing about full reimbursement.
 
It was extraordinary for the fire fighters to go outside of the town limits to fight the blaze. Hence, Mr. Cranick should've paid the fee with the realization that he is not residing in the town that provides the service! (or didn't in this case)

edit: what sjwaste said.. lol
 
ScottyB said:
I can imagine your world now:

Cop 1: Well, Cletus. That there woman didn't pay her rape tax.
Cop 2: Guess we shouldn't help get that rapist off her.
Cop 1: Shoot, let's get some donuts.
Click to expand...

Cops aren't required to help anybody, FYI... They can legally stand there and do as you describe.

The only person who is ultimately responsible for you, is you...

That's how the real world works.

Why do people think someone is going to come on their white horse in their shiny armor to save the day? Better be prepared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top