Resident claims she lost home because firefighters ignored blaze

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
You. Are. An. Idiot.

If libertarianism it to blame for the residents of a yokel county choosing not paying for a fire department either by paying the nearby town or setting one up themselves, then your big government murdered tens of thousands of people in Iraq recently. So, want to compare scores?

Non sequitur. If you're going to respond to my post, please get the context right. I was responding to Pulsar's post, wherein he rails on about every single thing government does, including police and fire protection. And I stand by my point. Libertarians never get their candidates elected because they too often come across like anarchists.

- wolf
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ever heard of sarcasm?

I don't know if you're completely ignorant of local government or what, but we generally have socialist fire departments in America. This is an example of non-socialist policy that you rightwingers actually want and that you claim is more American. In reality you don't understand American values at all.

Why does everything have to be explained lately?

WTF? Rightwingers have zero problem with this. We have fire coverage available. Want it? Pay for it! As American as apple pie. Only the left wingers are looking for the benefit at someone else's expense.

I am in rural Tennessee. Fire coverage is available for a small fee. I want fire coverage, so I pay the small fee and I'm grateful that coverage is available. People who don't want fire coverage don't pay the fee. People living in apartments don't care about fire coverage and don't pay the fee. People who want the coverage but without the fee are free to live inside the city limits, and of course pay a lot more in taxes. Everybody's happy - except of course the liberals who demand protection but with someone else paying.

American values \= free teat.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
In time, people will wake up to just how fanatical and extreme these anti-government types are. No basic fire or police protection? Is no roads next?

This is libertarianism in 2010 people. It's spelled a-n-a-r-c-h-y.

- wolf

Why assume that these people are libertarian? They could just as easily be liberals, wanting the benefit without paying the cost. Tax the rich to pay for my fire service, not me!

From a libertarian standpoint this is an ideal situation - you have a good government service available if you wish to pay for it, without being charged for it if you don't wish to use it. A good libertarian would accept responsibility; a good liberal never accepts responsibility. They even want credit for what they INTENDED to do (pay the fee) even though they didn't actually do it. You can't get much more liberal than a refusal to accept consequences of one's own actions coupled with demands for credit for intentions.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
The fire department could have either:

A) fought the fire and sorted any issues over costs and fees afterward, using the courts if necessary.

B) let the house burn down.

Real Americans choose B. Yeehaw!
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
I bet the insurance company/bank that actually owns the home will sue that little piss town into the ground.

For what? It's the negligence of the home owner, period. He didn't want to pay for the service. It's also probably something required by his home insurance company(if he even had any and/or mortgage company) The only thing sad about this article is that pets perished.

People complain about having to pay property taxes on services that they don't use and want to only pay for services they want.
 
Last edited:

dca221

Member
Jun 21, 2008
135
0
71
Let's just ignore the fact that no hospital can refuse treatment due to lack of money, m'kay?

And you just ignore the fact that was right above your response: 45,000 people die every year because they lack insurance. And the good doctors who did the research explain this for you below. But let me paraphrase: if you don't have insurance, you (or your wife, mother, sister, daughther) may not discover that bump in her breast is early stage cancer, and when she finally does, it's too late. Or if you skimp on your diabetes or heart medication because you can't afford it, you will die. It's not as simple as people being denied care after showing up at the emergency room after a heart attack; there are more subtle ways lack of insurance and medical care can and does kill people.

But you don't want facts or reasoned arguments, do you? You just want to spout your babble from your foaming mouth that government is taking over healthcare and Democrats will enslave you.

Every other developed country figured out a way to insure ALL their citizens and provide basic coverage, including Japan, Germany, and Israel (if you don't like the examples of England, Canada, and France). Yet the US wants to implement a market-based insurance model (mind you, no universal health care, no public option, only mandates to buy insurance), and suddenly "government take over of healthcare" or "take your government hands off my medicare!".

Let's repeat: 45,000 people die every year because they lack insurance. And I believe health care is a right, not a privilege, since LIFE is the most basic right I have. Some wise men said it much better than I ever could over 200 years ago:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"

You are a fan of founding fathers, aren't you?

*********************
"The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance,
found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of
death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess
death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately
insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and
baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches
at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new
ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but
only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
I wonder what they would have done if someone was trapped inside the house when the fire started? Would these cowards have stood on the side and watched?
At least one of the firefighters was assaulted after the fire, I really hope it extends to their families.
Is anyone going to answer this question?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
If you read same thread in ATOT, folks there mention that the fire department to save lives but will not save the building.

I did not read the entire thread. So, if the owners are not home and kids light the fire and are stuck in the home and a neighbor calls, would the firefighters still stand outside holding their dicks?

You don't think for a second that the law, as Jediyoda would say, is STOOPID?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This make me sick. Absolutely sick. I'm not talking about the situation with the folks house, either. I talking about the shear number of people in this place who support a total nanny state.

I mean, I expect it of Craig and Throckmorton and our friends from the already-government-controlled UK. But the others arguing for it? Holy shit.

How can so many of you people be so irresponsible that you believe the government is the answer to this stuff? It started with social security. Medicare. Medicade. It continued with healthcare. Indigents can get cellphones through government programs. Housing bailouts. Now there are inforced home-heating subsidies and rules about turning that off. Food stamps. WIC. Electricity. Water. Police. Fire. Taxes and fines for not recycling.

It's insane. Yet the same people keep preaching more, more more. We need more. We need to take care of more people. More homeless. More children. Think of the needy! Think of the uneducated! Think of the unemployed! All you people who make ends meet, who go to your job and work hard should be ashamed! You have so much and they have to little. You should feel sorry for them, and you should be embarrased you have so much.

Screw you. Screw the people who think that I should be embarassed for what I have. Screw the people who think that because I have a well paying job that I should support the people who don't. I give 10% of my yearly take home to charities, because that's the right think to do. This year I donated my car as well. But screw you to the people like Throckmoton, Craig, and all the rest who believe they need to make these people my legal responsibility and force me to pay for them.

Much like the country of Greece - there is going to come a time when we can't do it anymore. We're getting closer every day. Government workers comprising a huge percentage of the population. Lifetime benefits and pensions for those workers.

It makes me want to vomit, and to cry for the future of this country. You idiots are destroying it.

The ignorance. The straw men. Oh, for the good old days of the 19th century and 90% elder poverty and almost no healthcare and similar problems. Go to Somalia, your utopia.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
I did not read the entire thread. So, if the owners are not home and kids light the fire and are stuck in the home and a neighbor calls, would the firefighters still stand outside holding their dicks?

You don't think for a second that the law, as Jediyoda would say, is STOOPID?

That's not what happened though. You're making the assumption that the fire department didn't ask if everyone in the household was accounted for.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
That's not what happened though. You're making the assumption that the fire department didn't ask if everyone in the household was accounted for.

Why should they ask? How would they know if the answer was the truth? Better to bill the owner later than to let a house burn down.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Why should they ask? How would they know if the answer was the truth? Better to bill the owner later than to let a house burn down.

It really bothers me that there are people who actually argue against this being the proper way to handle this situation, and flat out scares me that such folks can be in charge of a town and fire department.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
It really bothers me that there are people who actually argue against this being the proper way to handle this situation, and flat out scares me that such folks can be in charge of a town and fire department.
So you basically think the town should act as a charity with its fire department to people who live outside of it? (People inside the ordinary town fire coverage definitely are covered.)

If they try to collect without even possibly having got permission first to respond a fire outside of their jurisdiction, its very questionable that they can compel them to pay at all. (I strongly suspect the answer is ordinarily the person doesn't have to pay period.) The realistic answer is probably a bill of thousands of dollars to effectively when they actually come out to a fire to pay the true costs of covering a substantial area where the people don't ordinarily pay it, but having the capacity to effectively handle them be maintained. This means getting people to pay up would be really difficult, and the fire department would presumably get negative coverage from the press anyways.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
It really bothers me that there are people who actually argue against this being the proper way to handle this situation, and flat out scares me that such folks can be in charge of a town and fire department.

It frightens me that you hate democracy so much that you want the city who has a fire department maintained by the taxes of those hard working people in the city to be required to provide services to people outside the city even though those people choose not pay for the upkeep required to maintain said department. The voters outside of the city could vote to put a county fire department into place, but they democratically chose not to. Why do you hate democracy?

It disgusts me that people like you are allowed to exist. You're destroying this country.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
So you basically think the town should act as a charity with its fire department to people who live outside of it? (People inside the ordinary town fire coverage definitely are covered.)

If they try to collect without even possibly having got permission first to respond a fire outside of their jurisdiction, its very questionable that they can compel them to pay at all. (I strongly suspect the answer is ordinarily the person doesn't have to pay period.) The realistic answer is probably a bill of thousands of dollars to effectively when they actually come out to a fire to pay the true costs of covering a substantial area where the people don't ordinarily pay it, but having the capacity to effectively handle them be maintained. This means getting people to pay up would be really difficult, and the fire department would presumably get negative coverage from the press anyways.

I expect emergency responders to do their god damn job inside their coverage area. Which includes where this fire took place despite there being extra fees involved. Everything else can be sorted out by the court if need be, and it's not like the government is ever going to be on the losing end of a bill collection matter.


Bober, I democratically elect you to eat a dick.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Yeah, this sort of thing is pretty much the consequences of what the "conservatives" keep taking about.

"I've paid it many, many times," Cranick said, "I just haven't gotten around to it (this year)."

Geez so its okay for states/governments to be a nanny state to drooling fucktards who refuse to pay or put off important shit like paying for insurance, home mortgages they can't afford, or any other type of recurring bill.
 
Last edited:

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
It frightens me that you hate democracy so much that you want the city who has a fire department maintained by the taxes of those hard working people in the city to be required to provide services to people outside the city even though those people choose not pay for the upkeep required to maintain said department. The voters outside of the city could vote to put a county fire department into place, but they democratically chose not to. Why do you hate democracy?

It disgusts me that people like you are allowed to exist. You're destroying this country.

He didn't say that.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
I expect emergency responders to do their god damn job inside their coverage area. Which includes where this fire took place despite there being extra fees involved. Everything else can be sorted out by the court if need be, and it's not like the government is ever going to be on the losing end of a bill collection matter.
No, we talking about an area clearly OUTSIDE of their coverage area by ordinary measures.

You have the option of paying an additional fee to have your house added to the coverage area, but its optional outside the area coverage.

Besides many not being able to pay the true costs, you are simply wildly mistaken on the ability of city governments to always win in a dispute like this no matter the situation. Basically as you are suggesting they could behave, the homeowner could simply say I am outside of their jurisdiction, (absolutely legally completely accurate) and I didn't request any fire response, so I am under absolutely no obligation to pay, and the homeowner should absolutely win his legal dispute.

The kind of policy you're talking about would presumably require a new state law, and basically make fire coverage mandatory in most areas with the only question being if you pay in advance or way more after the fact. This could even possibly include a situation where the homeowner has to pay even though he was well on his way to successfully putting out the fire on his own before the fire department arrived. (I.E. he has access to a water pressure washing machine and was using it on the fire.) Another problem would be people far away from fire stations where they get billed when the fire department came to put out mostly the embers on the ruins of the house by the time they arrive. The option could be discussed, but its certainly not the current legal situation.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
Maybe the dems will get wind of this situation and totally overhaul fire protection in the US so that everyone is covered like they did with healthcare.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
The ignorance. The straw men. Oh, for the good old days of the 19th century and 90% elder poverty and almost no healthcare and similar problems. Go to Somalia, your utopia.

Yeah yeah, I know. Think of the children. Think of the elderly. Think of the <insert group here>.

I've got a better idea. Think of your future. Work for it. Save for it. Rely on your family. Live as a group to save money.

You know - be personally responsible for yourself.

I'm not silly enough to think that the police shouldn't be provided by the government. I am intelligent enough to see how a crack in the door has turned into a flood. Government officials now jump at every opportunity to offer every service they can think of because it is the easiest quickest way to buy votes. Nevermind that we already can't pay for what we've got. Not by a long shot.

Even though we can't pay for what we have, we continue to hold out cash to everyone who needs it. There is a point, if you are personally responsible, that you STOP spending money. You turn off the cable and satellite TV. You get rid of the cellphone. You shut off the internet. You turn down your thermostat.

Charity cases and the votes they represent are destroying this country. The politicians are hastening it along with their continual pandering. There's only a handful of them in the country who stand up and fight for their balanced budgets, and when people cry "but it's for the good of everyone" they respond "That's nice. Go get the money for it somewhere and do it, because WE don't have it".

We don't have the money to continue our current military operations. I see that and agree. We ALSO don't have the money to continue all of these social systems that people like you seem intent on stacking up.

It's ridiculous. They already can't balance the budget, but you just don't care do you.