Posted on 10/07/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by Catholic Examiner
Greed over need. What would Jesus do?
That's a good question: did Jesus weigh-in on people who expect to live off of the charity of their neighbors?
Too bad they didn’t work out something along the lines of ‘if you don’t subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.
But then...maybe most people wouldn’t pay the $75 playing the odds that their house wouldn’t catch fire.
Interesting situation.
The least the firemen could do would have been leave rather than sit and watch the house burn down.
Good grief. I think whoever wrote that needs to pick up his bible and read about the good Samaritan.
Would it have hurt the FD to fight this fire? No. Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee. Case closed.
From what I’ve heard - 3 dogs and a cat died in that house fire!!!
Exactly!
Funny how people like to order Firemen to go into a Burning house - a house that is outside of their taxbase, a house where the owner decided to both drop Fire Department coverage, as well as declined to install any fire prevention system to replace the Fire Department’s protection.
I do believe we are expected to assume some personal responsibility.
But no; let’s demand that the Firemen go into this house.
At their own risk (if they fight a fire outside their assigned jurisdiction, they forfeit medical and life insurance). If the homeowner decides they didn’t put the fire out ‘fast enough’ or caused water damage to non-burned areas of his home, he can sue the individual firemen - personally.
Yep, that’s right. When you are a certified fireman, you assume certain protections. You are protected medically, and have life insurance for this dangerous profession - if and only if you are fighting in an area you have been assigned. You cannot go crusading across the nation, putting out any house fire you see - and maintain this coverage.
Now let’s look at the financial facts. This idiot homeowner took a risk. The Fire Department (FD) is not supported by tax revenue, so they must charge $75/yr to the homes in the area they can support. This idiot had previously supported the firemen, but decided that he would take a gamble this year. He lost.
If the FD had put his home out; who would pay $75 for protection next year? Why pay, if they will serve your home, at personal risk, anyway? So, the FD would go bankrupt and no one would have coverage. It’s just that simple. It takes money to run a FD, even a 100% voluntary FD.
This is a simple test ... do you want a Nanny State or are you willing to accept personal responsibility. In the USA we have the right to be as stupid as we want. It is not the Government’s job to fix stupidity - stupidity has consequences, and this is an example of stupidity in action.
I suspect that this idiot’s misery is only starting. If I were the insurance company, I wouldn’t pay - because the homeowner was probably in violation of his lending agreement in not providing adequate Fire Safety. I’ll bet that there are clauses in his Mortgage Agreement concerning maintaining minimal safeguards against fire, flood and other damage. Stupidity should be painful, perhaps other idiots will learn from this idiot and write that $75 check.
They could have put it out and sent him a bill. It would hav been a lot more than $75.
I am curious as to whether they had homeowners’ insurance. It would seem that you would not be able to get it unless you had fire protection, such as, could prove you paid your $75 each year.
Please tell me how you get fiancing with any bank with this clause? Let's see ... we have 1,000 homes in this area - and if 10% of them catch fire, we'll make some money....
Couldn't you make the legal arguement that any charge above $75 is now 'gouging' or 'extortion'? You don't walk into the insurance company after your home is flooded and waive around a $125 check, demanding retro-active Flood insurance coverage, do you?
They could at least have hosed it down, while they were standing around watching. How much could that have cost? They were already there, no one would have had to enter it.
Then why would ANYONE pay $75/yr to the FD? The FD is not supported by tax dollars, so the money has to come from somewhere. If no one pays the 'insurance', then the FD will go broke - and then NO ONE will have fire protection. Do you want a Nanny State - which is essentially communism - or do you subscribe to the basic principle of Personal Responsibility? It's really that simple.
Yes, it would. If their insurance caught wind of them putting out a fire outside of their jurisdiction, and outside of customer agreements, they'd probably lose their insurance, and be put out of business.
Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee.
Fine someone for not paying a voluntary fee? Sounds Democrat to me.
Case closed.
Nope.
I have watched this article for a couple of days now,and heard all of the arguments in another forum.
The situation is a bad one and the solution they have come up with sucks. One must wonder how the argument would go had it been a poor black person’s home they allowed to burn down, but that isn’t reallt germane either.
These people need to come up with a new plan for fire protection in their community.
As a retired career Firefighter, I have seen the ravages of fire. The personal losses that cannot be replaced. Photographs, papers, inheritance ,that cannot be bought at any price destroyed by fire Irreplacebale items.What if Grandma had been in the fire they refused at first to even respoond to.
I have heard all of the arguments and know for a certainty that I would have fought that fire with a shovel and dirt if that was all I had to fight it with.
Sitting there with a functional piece of Fire Apparatus and a crew and watching this mans home burn is not the act of Christian people and certainly not the act of Firefighters.
I dont care to argue this point, nor will my mind ever be changed. No matter how cheap or rotten a person the man was, it doesnt excuse this action.
If even a Charles Manson deserves to have a lawyer, even a cheap sumbugger like this deserves to have some effort made to save his home.
If it’s the fault of the system, Change the system, but this is a sorry sin this community has committed.
***Too bad they didn’t work out something along the lines of ‘if you don’t subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.***
Our fire dept has that kind of an arangement. Often rural houses are uninsured as they are too far away from a fire hydrant. As a result, fire ins companies will not insure them, and only the water the fire truck has on it is used, which often is not enough.
When the city water lines came through I had a fireplug put in my front yard, and got lower ins rates. I also pay my fire dues.
I don’t buy life insurance. I do expect the insurance company to pay my survivors anyway. It’s the Christian thing to do.
As for auto insurance. I cancelled my policy last year. That said, if I have an accident I expect the company to pay for the damages.
I doubt they have the authority to fine anyone!! The author is exactly right about this.IMHO
If the FD engages, they accept responsibilty for any damages.
Again, if you can depend on being a parasite to the FD - then so can EVERONE else. The fact that the FD was optional is a very basic exercise in Personal Responsibilty - one that both the home owner and you fail to grasp. Stupid action have consequences.
If he doesn’t have to pay for FD protection, then neither does anyone else. If no one pays the $75/yr payment - how do you suppose the FD is to be financed? Who pays for the Fire Engine, maintenance, equipment, training, the station, utilities, ect? The entire FD would go bankrupt - and then on one would have fire protection.
This concept is Ben Franklin’s brainchild. He established the first private fire department. Those who paid the fee received a plaque to put on their homes. If your home caught fire, the fire department would come to the rescue. No fee, no plaque, no home!
And neighbors - ALL of whom had paid the $75 themselves - said this guy had at least 20 minutes to rescue the animals from his house before the fire became too dangerous to enter.
Yes he did and the insurance co. is in the process of paying off!!
The initial refusal to respond does bother me--because of the fact that someone's life could have been in danger. They should have responded to ensure safety of lives if nothing else.
Heh-heh, didn’t you learn your lesson yesterday?
};^)
You could perhaps put in a call to Barney Frank.
When the phone don't ring, you'll know it's him.
“Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee.”
I don’t think they have the power to fine anyone. This is a volunteer department.
I’m nothing if not tenatious, predictable and stubborn.
:-D
Thank you!
It’s amazaing to see how many people here simply do not get that - and yet claim to be conservative.
My personal belief is that reliousness simply may not be compatible with conservatism, and that belief just keeps getting stronger and stronger.
In a way, the story of the TALENTS in the Bible can be applied to this question. Even better is the parable of the Ten Virgins.
The answer in those parables is, If you don’t pay for fire/rescue services, don’t whine when you find yourself out on the street. If you won’t help share the cost to the community, why should the community share with you.
Having homeowners insurance is not the same as paying a voluntary assessment for the volunteer fire department.
If there was a mortgage the lender would require homeowners insurance or they would charge the homeowner for a policy the lender takes out - at a much higher price.
Wonder if the house was paid off and if it was, there would be no requirement for a homeowners policy.
I believe it is a city fire department supported by the tax payers...so those taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab for a non tax payers loss. This is about personal responsibility...this guy failed to exercise personal responsibility and now it’s time to pony up the price! Sorry man you place your bet you take your chances!!
“You don’t walk into the insurance company after your home is flooded and waive around a $125 check, demanding retro-active Flood insurance coverage, do you?”
Sadly, many so called conservatives here probably support the “right” to do just that.
These WWJD thread are pretty illuminating. If religous people think Jesus would be down with something, it’s no great stretch to them to think “society” (which ends up being gvt) should be too.
“They could at least have hosed it down, while they were standing around watching. How much could that have cost?”
Their entire income for next year.
Why pay then if you can get it free, after the fact?
What’s the problem? A bunch of wood burned. Happens every day. It is not a public problem. It is a private problem. Let it be a lesson.
What if the guy had a nice family car, or truck with no insurance. Auto body guys and mechanics are supposed to fix it with their labor?
He didn’t want to pay for labor. Also, he wasn’t friends( obviously with the firemen ) So, it seems this guy has a problem with social contracts, money and otherwise.
He wanted to live outside the social contract. Fine.
No different then loser, welfare, non working parasites that want all the work of laborers, taken by force through government taxation and derived to them, and usually supported by woolly headed Marxist .
True. I don't think there is a Good Samaritan Law for firefighters.
“These people need to come up with a new plan for fire protection in their community.”
Socialism to the rescue!
They don’t need to come up with anything at all. They have a system.
This guy didn’t want to pay, so he lost his house.
The parallels between this and Obamacare are astounding. Someone brought that up on one of the previous threads on this.
This story is a metaphor for ObamaCare.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachSteal from others because of your choice
not to be responsible for yourself.Yah'shua said :
Mar 10:19 "You know the commandments, .... DO NOT STEAL,.... , Do not defraud, ........."
It’s compatible...the Bible is full of stories and parables about people being punished for their own lack of judgment. The Christian thing is not to expect something for nothing. True Christians would come to help this gentleman after the fact. Since according to the story he was fully covered by insurance he only lost the personal items that can’t be replaced so should require little help!
I understand all that. I was commenting on whether they did the Christian thing or not. They were there already. They could have had him sign a waiver on the spot, and hosed the place instead of watching.
Thanks for saving me from typing all that. You NAILED it! 100% correct!
They 'could' have. IIRC, they showed up, but only to protect other properties .
Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee. Case closed.
No. Can't.
He didn't pay for fire/rescue services.
The firemen legally and technically are not supposed to respond to his address. If they do, they do so at their own cost, and cannot 'FINE' him for anything, as he was given the choice not to pay, and not be covered. If they put out the fire, they would be encouraging other citizens to not pay, since the fireman can't 'charge' or 'fine' you.
The firemen were in a CATCH-22.
Everyone from the mayor on down said NO. If you are the Fire Chief 'on-scene', and this is CITY/TOWN policy, what do you do?
Would you give up your job, to put out that fire ?
Whoa!!! Well said!!!!!Well said!!!! Dittos!!!!
All they would have to do, if that was their concern, would be to re-negotiate their contracts with whatever clauses they feel are necessary. They were there, they could have hosed the place.
Just write a quick waiver on the spot, and have him sign it. There were plenty of witnesses.
I agree; I was pondering this and thought of the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
It seemed to have a lot of parallels to this story; on anther thread I was lambasted for defending the Ant (on a conservative web page, no less).
I don’t know about you, but among the first checks I would write every January 1st would be a $75 check to the FD.
It could. If the Fire Department's liability insurance carrier canceled its liability coverage because it violated the terms of its contract with the county and with the insurance carrier, it would have hurt the FD and it would have hurt all the neighbors who would no longer be afforded fire protection.
No the couldn't.
If they put it out, they would be doing so at their own cost. The Fire Department/City cannot 'charge' him for services he has refused to subscribe to.
They would be better off to sick the EPA on him for violating local air standards because the Fire Department was left with no recourse but to watch it burn.
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.