Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Video: Great Debate On The Whole "Firemen Refuse To Put Out Fire" Controversy
The Hope For America ^ | 10/6/10 | Angela McGlowan, Andy Levy

Posted on 10/06/2010 8:01:36 AM PDT by careyb

Andy Levy vs. Angela McGlowan. The fun starts around 4:30 but Halftime Reports are always fun to watch on Red Eye.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: redeye

1 posted on 10/06/2010 8:01:37 AM PDT by careyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: careyb

Great Andy Levy line:

“I’m losing track of the number of Muslims who I have to remember don’t speak for Islam. It’s a long list.”


2 posted on 10/06/2010 8:11:02 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: careyb
I chalk this whole thing up to one of my mom's old sayings. You may have every right to be a jerk, but in the end you are still a jerk. The guy didn't pay the bill so the firemen had every right to not put out the fire. In terms of a business it was exactly what they needed to do. But standing buy laughing while a man's house is destroyed makes you a jerk.

Firemen have always been respected more than insurance agents and lawyers. And there was a darn good reason for that. Lawyers and insurance agents were pure mercenary. They did what they did for the money and didn't give a damn what happened to the people involved. Firemen, even the professional variety who get paid for what they do, were always viewed as something more. It wasn't just about the money, but a duty to the community. That is why firemen ride at the front of a parade, while the lawyers sit on the curb. It is why mercenaries will never receive the same respect as the soldier, even though they do essentially the same job.

By refusing to put out the fire, the volunteer fire company made a shrewd business decision. But they also put themselves firmly into the category of all other ruthless business people. That is well within their rights. But it will never make them beloved. If $75 is worth trashing their reputation in the community, then they made the right decision.
3 posted on 10/06/2010 8:14:09 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
You may have every right to be a jerk, but in the end you are still a jerk.
Your mother was right. And it sure does apply here.
4 posted on 10/06/2010 8:18:51 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: careyb

If you don’t purchase auto insurance and then after an auto accident you tell the insurance company they have to pay for the repairs how far will you get.


5 posted on 10/06/2010 8:21:09 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Absolutely! What kind of jerk doesn’t pay a mere $75 to ensure fire protection for his family’s home? And then, to top it off, the jerk expects a service for free! What a jerk for demanding welfare!


6 posted on 10/06/2010 8:23:13 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carley

You are correct they should have bought the fire insurance. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them.


7 posted on 10/06/2010 8:26:07 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

They all got paid to stand there and watch it burn so not getting paid doesn’t hold much water.

The auto insurance analogy doesn’t work because firefighting is damage prevention not damage coverage.

This argument is why paid firefighting should be avoided at all costs. It also reminds me why I should donate more time to my local fire company.


8 posted on 10/06/2010 8:30:59 AM PDT by Racer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: careyb

They should have put the fire out then worried about the $75.


9 posted on 10/06/2010 8:32:50 AM PDT by ryan71 (Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racer1
This argument is why paid firefighting should be avoided at all costs. It also reminds me why I should donate more time to my local fire company.

Bad example. They were a volunteer fire company, so the individuals didn't get paid. They demanded a $75 per year fee to cover equipment. They guy didn't pay, so his house burned. A good, if hard nosed, business decision.

But as I said earlier the fire company now gets all the respect that I give the repo man or the lawyer on retainer. If you demand money up front for a service, expect to be treated as a contract employee not a hero. They have demonstrated clearly that they are mercenaries, no more, no less.
10 posted on 10/06/2010 8:36:52 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

I don’t care enough about this issue to argue about it.

I’m going to go back to the Great Andy Levy line from the video:

“I’m losing track of the number of Muslims who I have to remember don’t speak for Islam. It’s a long list.”


11 posted on 10/06/2010 8:40:02 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: careyb

The part that I missed in this whole controversy is something my wife and I talked about yesterday.

This guy supposedly lives in a rural area that didn’t even have fire service until this new fee came along to provide it.

Given he’s in a rural area how far gone was the house by the time the fire department got there? It’s entirely possible that even if he had paid his yearly fee the house was a total loss anyways.

So one way or another he lost his house, and now just wants to make a big stink about it.


12 posted on 10/06/2010 8:42:27 AM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racer1
I think the question here is did the fire company receive funding from local property taxes if so the homeowner should have had the fire put out. If the fire company was essentially a private company providing a service for subscribers THEN and only then were they justified in not doing so.

It seems to me that the property taxes were likely diverted to other things rather than the services they were intended to provide. This happens very often in mismanaged local governments i.e. you won't pay higher taxes so they (the town officials) are going to cut the fire and police service and if you still refuse them they cut the water and sewer services as well. But we'll never cut the town car and drivers for the town officials.

13 posted on 10/06/2010 8:43:55 AM PDT by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: careyb

I unfortunately have actually seen a house burn up in a fire. To be honest, I don’t care if it is a mansion or a shack... it is someone’s home and very disturbing to see. If I lived in a community that I had to pay for this service, I would. That being said, I wouldn’t support one volunteer fire service carnival, raffle etc... AND I wouldn’t stop if I saw a fireman on the side of the road and needed help. I would drive right on by and wave. Why? Where’s MY money? Have a flat tire? Too bad. I would have little to no respect for that department. Just a thought.


14 posted on 10/06/2010 8:46:52 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Why couldn’t they make it so that if they put out the fire, and you didn’t by $75, you get a bill for say, $500.

The problem is that by not putting out the fire on his house, it endangered the other houses in the area that did pay their $75.


15 posted on 10/06/2010 8:49:36 AM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers - AL West Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: careyb

Burgess wrote about this and Islam as the disintegrating forces of Britain in his novel “1985”.

The protagonist’s wife dies in a fire the during a fire department strike.


16 posted on 10/06/2010 8:50:06 AM PDT by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

They came to the aid of the house next door because it was in danger. If everybody knew that they only had to pay when the FD showed up, nobody would pay. Without the $75/house up front, they might not have enough $ to maintain their vehicles, facilities, gear, etc. Also, before the $75 fee, no rural homes had fire department protection. Before the fee, any rural house fire went without assistance. The FD was nice enough to provide service for a small, upfront fee. Gift-horse, mouth, get it?


17 posted on 10/06/2010 8:57:32 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
"Two barrels on the family's property caught fire, and that spread to the house."

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13277366

18 posted on 10/06/2010 8:59:09 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: careyb
Question ...Was this fire crew a private for profit business?... because I find that hard to believe... because when is the best time to sell your services?... when then their in demand.. so good business would be to charge the guy a big price (say $5,000 to $7,500) and put the fire out...lets face it..in a true free marker you can buy and people will sell, anything for a price

I want to know what law prevent them from selling their services at a premier right then and there... because that $75 fee sounds more like a property tax or association fee... and people lose their houses all the time over unpaid propriety tax's or association fee's ... they just take it legally

19 posted on 10/06/2010 9:03:36 AM PDT by tophat9000 (.............................. BP + BO = BS ...........................Formula for a disaster...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

You would have every right to. If the firefighter is stranded on the side of the road it is because he CHOSE not to pay a small fee to AAA. Of course, now he knows the value of AAA. Even though he never needed it before, now that he is without it the small AAA membership fee would be most valuable. If you feel so badly for this family that CHOSE not to pay a fee to cover possible costs since they paid no city taxes, and then CHOSE to open burn insecurely, send them a check yourself.


20 posted on 10/06/2010 9:07:49 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carley
If you don’t purchase auto insurance and then after an auto accident you tell the insurance company they have to pay for the repairs how far will you get.

Same with homeowners insurance, life insurance, buying AAA protection, etc. etc.

21 posted on 10/06/2010 9:14:17 AM PDT by GOPJ (Liberal violence against Tea Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFeUhSlHiUQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: careyb

I would image that alot of folks in that area have RUN to fire station this week to pay their fire protection bill. I feel sorry for the guy but he knew the rules.


22 posted on 10/06/2010 9:19:20 AM PDT by oldvike (I'm too drunk to taste THIS chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Gift-horse, mouth, get it?

Pay for service horse, gifts are free of charge, fire service is quite obviously not. Get it?

I'm just surprised by the reactions of everyone in this case. The home owner is a twit, a cheapskate, and a moocher. I don't have the slightest sympathy for him. He took his chances and he paid the price.

However the firemen also seem surprised that when they act like they guy who repossess your car that they get treated like repo men instead of heroes. The firemen made a conscious decision to let a house, that could have been saved, burn because of lack of payment. Well they will get paid on time from now on, but don't expect to be loved by the community. Being a mercenary means you get to pick your fights, but it also means you will never have a statue in your honor.
23 posted on 10/06/2010 9:20:07 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

The gift is the FD and city agreeing to extend fire service to rural areas. They very well could have decided to not do so.


24 posted on 10/06/2010 9:25:53 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
On at least two occasions you have called this a Volunteer FD. That is NOT the case. It is a professional FD paid for by the taxpayers of that city. The homeowner does NOT pay these city taxes. He lives outside the city. The city had decided to allow the FD to answer calls outside the city fire district on a subscription basis. This homeowner CHOSE not to subscribe. His next door neighbor however, did subscribe and his house was saved. If a fireman had been injured saving the house of the UNsubscribed homeowner,(acting outside its jurisdiction) would that fireman be covered by the FD’s insurance carrier?...doubtful.

BTW, I have the same situation where I live. I pay NO TAXES to the county for fire protection. I pay a fee because I am in the "subscriber area", the professional FD house in my nearby city is closer to my home than the nearest VFD and it has more/better equipment than the VFD. The city FD WILL send out a rescue truck to ALL CALLS within its subscriber area in case there are lives at stake, but not send equipment to save unsubscribed property. This is as it should be and I am pleased with this arrangement.

25 posted on 10/06/2010 9:31:16 AM PDT by Roccus (......and then there were none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
The gift is the FD and city agreeing to extend fire service to rural areas. They very well could have decided to not do so.

And they demanded to be paid up front for it, and as proven by action not rhetoric they were quite inflexible about the terms of payment. Therefore not a gift. The local grocery store doesn't give you food as a gift. You pay for it, and they provide the product or service. No payment no service. A gift is something given without strings attached. Words have meanings.

The firemen stood buy and let a man's home burn over $75. They may have many virtues, but charity is quite clearly not among them.
26 posted on 10/06/2010 9:32:28 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Words do have meanings: Since when is charity now a service? Should Walmart be required to give out free food to those who demonstrate need? They had to bring water because there were no hydrants. Had there been another structure fire, they would not have been able to put it out for a paying customer because of their charity towards this dickhead. What happened to the concept of taxation without representation? This guy paid no taxes for the service therefore he receives no representation in the form of fire services. He can purchase it up front but didn’t.
This debate has done one thing here: It has brought the RINO’s out of their closets. Don’t forget that what these firefighters did was first introduced in Phili by Ben Franklin. Pay the fee, get the plaque to hang on your home, your home catches fire and the firefighters will respond. No fee, no plaque, no home.


27 posted on 10/06/2010 9:44:23 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

In my #25 I said, “I pay NO TAXES to the county for fire protection.” I should add that there IS NO county-wide fire protection.....just a few VFDs.


28 posted on 10/06/2010 9:44:56 AM PDT by Roccus (......and then there were none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
I chalk this whole thing up to one of my mom's old sayings. You may have every right to be a jerk, but in the end you are still a jerk.

If nobody paid the fee, there would be no fire department.

Then what, Mother Theresa?

29 posted on 10/06/2010 9:46:33 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Since when is charity now a service?

Never, note that I was pointing out that the two were mutually exclusive. It cannot be fee for service and charity at the same time. Charity is a virtue, not a service. Again READ the post. Nobody is required to show virtue, but do not expect to be recognized for virtue when none is shown.

The Firemen are acting like hard nosed business men. And they should be given the same level of respect of anyone else who does a job just for the money. You brought up Walmart. Walmart doesn't keep calling for support the Walmart widows and orphans fund charity. But the Fire Department does. With their actions the fire department decided to go to the level of the DMV. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people who expect us to treat firefighters as something special when they demand a fee for service up front before providing the service.

What happened to the concept of taxation without representation?

This is even better, no taxes involved, just fee for service. I don't have a problem with the whole thing. It is just that if the fire fighters want to play this game they should expect to be treated like any other business.

It has brought the RINO’s out of their closets.

It also appears to have brought out people who don't read posts before going off on a full blown rant.
30 posted on 10/06/2010 10:00:17 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
If nobody paid the fee, there would be no fire department. Then what, Mother Theresa?

Then stuff burns. Hey I said the firemen had every right to refuse service for lack of payment. However standing there watching someones house burn when you could easily prevent it, and when the home owner offered to pay whatever they demanded, just to make a point dose rank you as a bit ruthless. If you are OK with being ruthless more power to you. But don't present yourself as a public servant when you are actually a contract employee.
31 posted on 10/06/2010 10:04:17 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

The last part wasn’t about your particular post, it was a general comment. That is why I preempted it with what I wrote. Did you not read it? Ultimately, this incident has shown how sensitive the US is to people making hard-nosed business decisions. Are we that used to free handouts that when someone makes a business decision like this people freak out?


32 posted on 10/06/2010 10:04:34 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
If you are OK with being ruthless more power to you. But don't present yourself as a public servant when you are actually a contract employee.

If you're OK with a country where rules and laws are meant to be disregarded, good luck to you.

The mortgage industry takes your view of things. That's why their foreclosing on people who don't even have mortgages.

33 posted on 10/06/2010 10:09:10 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
The last part wasn’t about your particular post, it was a general comment. That is why I preempted it with what I wrote.

I did read it. You didn't even do a paragraph break, indicating a change of thought or subject. Since the first part of the paragraph is directed a my comments in particular it was reasonable to assume that any other statements within that paragraph were of similar intent.
34 posted on 10/06/2010 10:10:12 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Your attack on my paragraph break would indicate that your argument is weak and that you are trying to draw me away from it by attacking something that has nothing to do with the topic. If you no longer want to discuss the fire issue, post a thread about writing etiquette within FR.


35 posted on 10/06/2010 10:15:41 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The mortgage industry takes your view of things. That's why their foreclosing on people who don't even have mortgages.

And they should have been more ruthless. The banks tried to be a public service when they should have been run as a business. But then nobody expects to like a banker. Kids don't say I want to be a banker when I grow up. And nobody lets the repo man ride at the front of the parade.

Back to my point, the firemen need to decide if they are a business or a public service. They want the respect of a public service, but then want to play the hard nose money game of a business. I Don't care either way, but they need to decide what they are. If you are a business fine, everyone knows where they stand. But don't expect any special privileges or respect.

And please understand the guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot of almost impossible proportions. I have no sympathy for that guy in the least.
36 posted on 10/06/2010 10:17:45 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Are we that used to free handouts that when someone makes a business decision like this people freak out?

IMO, it's just a consequence of living under the heel of central planners. Many FReepers that have been on the threads on this subject have no concept of living without fire/police/sewer/water/trash services provided for by the central planners.

37 posted on 10/06/2010 10:24:47 AM PDT by Roccus (......and then there were none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
You asked if I read the post. I was showing that i did.

As to the firemen I have no issue with hard nosed capitalism, in fact i greatly prefer it. But everyone should be absolutely clear on the concept. A pure capitalist fire department could not possibly be worse than the city bankrupting union mess we have here in Chicago. I would love if government services were cafeteria style, and everyone could see what it is that they are paying for. I would love to stop paying for the public schools that my kids do not use and that i would never send my kids to.

But if the choice is made to run the fire department as a business, then it must be treated like any other business. No special respect or privileges. Competition would be allowed, at least so far as bidding for the annual contact. No more bilking the taxpayers for inflated pension payments.
38 posted on 10/06/2010 10:25:49 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
And please understand the guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot of almost impossible proportions. I have no sympathy for that guy in the least.

Yes, you do.

You think the fire should have been put out.

You think it's a matter of being "nice."

That attitude is what gave us the helpless welfare class, and a Social Security "Trust Fund" filled with worthless IOUs.

You know that big pension you think you have coming?

Ain't gonna happen, because the federal government decided it was better to be "nice" than have a solvent currency.

39 posted on 10/06/2010 10:52:22 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Back to my point, the firemen need to decide if they are a business or a public service.

In this case they are a business and behaved as such

40 posted on 10/06/2010 11:06:05 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
And please understand the guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot of almost impossible proportions. I have no sympathy for that guy in the least.
Yes, you do.

You think the fire should have been put out.

No now you are putting words into my mouth to support your argument. The firemen were under no obligation to put out the fire. And they didn't. But often business do more than they are required to do for public relations purposes. But each business needs to evaluate if the PR is worth it. In the case of the firemen the PR wasn't worth $75. So be it.

Of course that decision comes with some bad PR. And there will be a price paid in the good will of the community for that. They act like a business, they should fully expect to be treated like any other business. NO more, no less.

For example I pay for an extended drive train warranty on my car. If the car breaks I expect the dealer to fix it. If I don't pay and it breaks, I'm out of luck. But it is strictly a financial arrangement. I don't expect the car dealer to go beyond the terms of the agreement, and car dealer expects nothing more than my pre negotiated payment me. If a car falls of the jack and squishes the guy it quite literally isn't my problem. In fact I would expect another car dealer to honor the warranty.

That same financial only arrangement does not exist, or at least previously has not existed, with firefighters. How many times after 9/11 were we asked to open our wallets for the families of the fire fighters killed that day? Like many other I sent in my check. And how many millions of dollars poured into New York City afterwords? That is the value of a community's good will.

The guy who didn't pay the $75 was an idiot. The firefighters decided to make an example of him for all the other people who didn't pay. As I have repeatedly stated they had every right to do it. It was a business decision, possibly a very good business decision. But they need to accept the consequences of that decision as much as the homeowner (foundation owner now) has to accept the consequences of his decision. He thought he was saving $75 gambling that he would never need the firefighters. He was wrong, he paid the price. The firefighters will certainly have a much easier time getting their $75 now. In exchange for easier collections they are, gambling that they will not need the good will of the community in the future. Whether or not it is a good deal will depend on what happens next.
41 posted on 10/06/2010 11:49:56 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
In exchange for easier collections they are, gambling that they will not need the good will of the community in the future.

They will have the goodwill of law-abiding people who pay their bills and take care of their responsibilities.

They will not have the goodwill of the parasites, except that the parasites are too busy watching Oprah to notice.

42 posted on 10/06/2010 12:07:38 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Racer1
They all got paid to stand there and watch it burn so not getting paid doesn’t hold much water.

They got paid to be ready to protect the house of the neighbour who had paid the $75.

43 posted on 10/06/2010 11:36:04 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Pardon him...he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe ... are the laws of nature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

>>You are correct they should have bought the fire insurance. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them.<<

There is actually more to it than that. The owner was weighing the cost of insurance with the likelihood of his home catching on fire. It is the simple risk mitigation formula that considers three areas:

1. The likelihood of something happening.
2. The impact if it does happen.
3. The cost of protection from the event.

The three should be weighted and considered before an answer regarding what action to take is reached. And looking at the above three points it is easy to see why we don’t harden our homes from meteor strikes. Number three is rather cost prohibitive.

This homeowner made the mistake of focusing on the simple fact that, although number one is very low indeed (few homes actually catch on fire these days), he ignored the fact that number 3 was absurdly low.

Honestly, the odds were grossly in his favor, but it is never a sure thing.


44 posted on 10/07/2010 8:43:25 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Racer1

I honestly think the firemen did the right thing. This could have been right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged.

And trust me, John Galt would have very much agreed with what the firemen did. It also sent a message. If you want insurance, you will have to pay for it. I’d like to see people required to pay a fee BEFORE they go hiking if they want search and rescue to lift a finger. Sure, volunteers can still do whatever they want to to help, but an organization that has paid staff will only help those who have paid for the services.

Imagine if all our services were handled similarly. The one exception would be national security, “state militias” and courts/jails. And that is really the only area where government is absolutely required. It is just meddling in the other areas.


45 posted on 10/07/2010 8:47:33 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Didn’t I read or hear him say he never expected that the firemen would refuse to protect him in the event his house caught fire? He bet the cost of his house, belongings and pets against a $75. fee........... and he was WRONG! I really can’t feel sorry for him. Did he have a home owners fire insurance policy?


46 posted on 10/07/2010 8:52:08 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

>>Didn’t I read or hear him say he never expected that the firemen would refuse to protect him in the event his house caught fire?<<

And what happened to him sort of clears up that question for everyone who had not bought, as well as those who did and wondered if it mattered.

This is an example of tough love in action.


47 posted on 10/07/2010 9:05:38 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson