So, why should anyone pay the FD the $75 monthly bill? The FD will put your home out anyway.
The truth of the matter is that the homeowner had a chance to exercise Personal Responsibility, and failed miserably. Your response is to exercise the “Nanny State” solution.
Fires are EXACTLY like car accidents. They happen to anyone, without warning - that’s why it’s insurable.
Consider, I had a chance to visit with a local (Orem, UT) fireman and got some inside dope on this topic. We discussed it a little bit.
In Utah, if a Fireman goes outside of his assigned area, he can be held personally liable for any damage done by the fire. So, if this had taken place in Utah, the firemen could be sued for the damage done to the uncovered homeowner’s home.
Secondly, because firefighting is dangerous work, there are restrictions as to when your Medical Insurance is voided; one such restriction is fighting fires in areas outside your assigned area.
Consider, according to Tom - the $75/annual fee constitues a ‘contract’ for the FD to protect that property. Fighting fires outside of the ‘contracted’ area would expose the firemen to both legal, as well as personal injury, without legal or insurance protections.
If nothing else, this exercise will get every other idiot in the county to pony up $75.
THIS is Atlas Shrugging, people! We need more of this, if we are ever going to defeat the entitlement, irresponsible mentality permeating our culture today.
This also underscores the (soon-to-be) fatal flaw of Obamacare, where no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Don’t pay premiums for years, then when your appendix explodes, cut a check for one month premiums and expect treatment.
I believe many here are still not grasping that in this case, fire service was de-coupled from basic muncipality-provided, tax-supported services. Otherwise I am at a loss to understand the views of those on this Conservative forum.