I would put out that you can either pay $75 now** or if we have to respond to your residence it is a minimum $2,500 per incident. We take Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, or cash on the barrel head.*

* We are not responsible for any losses while you pay up.

** Check with your insurance company -- the $75 may be deductible against your overall deductible amount.

For the homeowner, this is no different than if you elect for liability-only on vehicle insurance. On a seriously-valuable car, that idea is just nuts.

If you decide to take the burden of home fire defense upon yourself - as is actually the case for lots of rural homes for which response is an iffy thing - that doesn't just mean you sit there and hope there's no fire.

Out here in the sticks, there's a volunteer firefighting force, and the grim anti-motto of these folks is "Save the Chimney". That's because you have about five minutes to get out of the house if you ever let a fire get out of the incipient stage, and it takes two of those just to get the call through from 911 to the firehouse. Then, it's many miles to the scene.

I like Jim's solution.

I think their system is a bad one, because the firefighter's lack of response meant it spread to the neighbor's property. The neighbor DID pay the $75, so at that point the fire was put out, but frankly it never should have reached that property to begin with, and I don't think the neighbor got his or her $75 dollar worth.

Fire protection is not something you should be able to opt out of, simply because it doesn't just affect you, fires spread.

We've created a generation of people who are capitalists with their income and socialists with their obligations.

Where I live on Long Island, our firefighters are all volunteer. They have annual fund drives and while I have always made donations, many people don't. These men and women respond to fires, car accidents, etc. My house burned down when I was 19 and I'll never forget the volunteers finding my father's business bank deposit of several thousand dollars in the ruins of our house and proudly giving it to my father. The fire was bad enough that lives could have been lost including those of the firefighters. Still, I can't say that I'd want to see anyone's house burn down because they didn't donate to the local firehouse. I know donations are a different thing than this story, but I feel very uncomfortable standing over burning ash and smugly saying I told you so.

What's next? paramedics refusing to administer CPR because you're not a resident of the city??

You need a better source for the story, Amy, or you would have read:

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

Freeloaders? not so much. And if they failed to actually pay, the city of South Fulton could have put a lien on the property. I hope the city has some really good lawyers. They're gonna need 'em.

This is...moronic.

A fire isn't going to say, "Oh, you guys paid up, I'll stay over here." They can get very dangerous very fast, and waiting until the fire spreads to nearby property is a danger to the entire neighborhood.

What next, instruct the cops not to investigate your murder if you didn't pay the police fee? There has to be a better way to do this.

The thing about choosing to participate in the coverage is you can't decide to participate once your house is actually on fire.
Theoretically the fire could be 5 feet away from their house and approaching it. Someone could say do you want the coverage? They could say no. Thinking maybe they will put the fire out when it's 5 feet away. If they put it out when it's 5 feet away they say, see I saved $75.00

I can't decide I want collision coverage on my car after I've wrecked it.

Live and learn. You are responsible for your good decisions and you BAD DECISIONS.

"What next, instruct the cops not to investigate your murder if you didn't pay the police fee?"

Warren v. District of Columbia- the cops don't have a legal responsibility to protect you. But they're still taking a paycheck from your tax dollars.

I'd rather police and fire be funded through taxes so the fire never spreads to my house, just like I'd hate to be killed because the last guy my murderer offed didn't pay his police fee.

I'm from a rural area and I prefer this system better to the one they had.

They didn't charge you a fee until after there was a fire. My parents lost absolutely everything of value in the home...had been stolen previous to the fire. Their savings had not bounced back after purchasing the home within two years previously. My brother and I are looking on in despair at our charred Christmas presents. Luckily there is insurance, but it only covers the home and contents. And then, the firefighters want several hundred dollars for putting out the fire.

The community pulled together and helped us out, which is the way things are supposed to go when this stuff happens.

I'm also pretty sick of the word rural being used to describe a place where flames could scatter from a house and land on another property. Where I grew up, rural meant there were several miles to the next house.

Those who disagree with what the firefighters did could join a volunteer fire department and learn.

If these people who owned the house, had insurance on it, they could also be guilty of insurance fraud. Insurance companies are usually very careful to find out what the fire protection scheme is and how far away your house in from a hydrant before they issue a policy. If these people lied to the insurance company that they were paid up in the subscription service for the fire department in order to either obtain or renew their coverage, if I were a representative of the insurance company I would darn sure refuse to cover their losses. I have spent most of my life living in rural areas with volunteer fire departments. A lot of people around where I live, build in the county to escape the city taxes. The additional taxes and construction costs alone on our house were almost 5000 dollars more than if our house had been built two blocks over (in the county)and they have continued at an elevated rate for the last 15 years. When you "opt out" here, you need to provide your own support for those things covered by both the city taxes and the city services. The sheriff or the deputies respond to your 911 calls because you are still paying the much reduced county tax BUT you fill your own propane tank if you are outside the area where the natural gas lines run, you hire a private company to pick up your garbage, Your electricity comes from either a private contractor or the REA (and not the city of Cheyenne) and you darn sure need to either fight your own fires or support the volunteer force that operates in the county, and to do that you theoretically have several hundred (or thousand) dollars a year that you do not pay in city taxes. The only way to stop this freeloading is to let people pay the price for their penny pinching. Most constitutional rulings require public employees such as police and firefighters to save someone's life if their are in need of medical services, but there is no constitutional obligation for anyone to save your private property.

"We've created a generation of people who are capitalists with their income and socialists with their obligations."

Well said. Most people don't really want to be free; they just want a generous and kindly master.

Let's see ... would I rather pay taxes for universal vaccinations, or just stock up on a couple years' canned goods for when the next epidemic breaks out? Hmmm, tough call. Duh.

That's just stupid. I'd rather pay for it and not need it than not pay for it and need it. Our town is lucky to have both paid and volunteer firefighters. Every year at the annual Oyster Festival, the firefighters have a dunk tank, and it's $1 for 3 throws. I'll stuff $5 in the boot and tell the guy, "give the next couple of kids to come along a shot". (I've got a lousy throwing arm.) I don't understand the over-inflated sense of entitlement a lot of people have. Never did.

Most people don't really want to be free; they just want a generous and kindly master.

Oh, I want my freedom alright. Most people want freedom, they just don't want the responsibility that goes along with it.

(So, how's everybody been? I haven't been around for a while because of all kindsa crap going on in my life, and I didn't need to bore or depress anyone here with it all. Things are better now. Dad is still alive, although failing health is an issue. I'm gainfully employed once again, even if it is only part-time for now. Life will get better, until it gets worse. Then it'll get better again, and around and around we go...)

I'm not sure people would be so eager to say, "Fuck 'em. Let it burn" had a few kids died in the fire instead of a few animals.

It would have been a simple matter to put out the fire, then charge them the full cost of putting out the fire, which probably would have been thousands of dollars. I doubt too many people would stop paying their $75 fee.

I don't agree with this. Far, far too much risk in terms of other houses being burnt to the ground and/or human/pet lives being put in jeopardy. All it would take is one gust of wind.

I live too close to the Oakland Hills to see this as anything but reckless.

Put the fire out, then fine them a large amount. This is so unbelievably punitive - and for no useful purpose. Fines will rehabilitate freeloaders without putting the entire neighborhood in jeopardy.

This is just one dumb idea.

Flynne: Glad to see ya back, chica!

I'm going to disagree with those who thought the firefighters should have put it out. You can't just fine them, there is a little matter of law being involved. You can't let others operate the same way, or there won't be a fire department available when those who paid for it need it.

Put on your parachute before exiting the plane, people. Some lessons are learned too late. That's life.

I bet that everybody else in that district has paid the $75 already.

Freeloaders are those epeople who do not pay their fair share of taxes.

They get the national security (hugely inflated in cost, but still) the police and fire protection, the schools, the streets, the pollution controls (something the private sector cannot do), the Border Patrol (getting better),the removal of complete quacks from the medical system (many still in, but better than nothing)the safe meds, and so forth.

How about some more carcinogens in the air? You want to see less regs? Try Los Angeles 1960. You couldn't see down the block through the smog. It was like smoking two packs a day.

But waa-waa about taxes, all the time. Waa-waa and boo-hoo.

Rich people in the US live better than anyone ever in history, even royalty. But waa-waa-waaa-waa. They have minions like the Reason Foundation or Heritage Foundation to weasel up principled sounding platforms for their craven avarice.

How did the fire department check to make sure there were no hurt or disabled individuals left in the house? Or pets?

I'd hate to be the fire department that arrives on scene, does nothing, and finds out someone or some animal has died.

I think Jim's solution isn't bad, and I think I'd hate to drive through that town wondering if I'll get paramedic or ER or police help if needed.

That said, regarding health insurance Amy, I've read your argument several times now, but I wonder if you are (or I am) missing the point. Yes, there will be a blip/bulge of people that have not paid into some system going through that system, much like, I believe, when new, Social Security paid lots of money to people who retired that had not paid into SS over the course of their lives. But once that blip moves through, you get a nation covered by SS and a nation covered with health insurance of people that have all paid into it.

So at that point, at the point where there is no temporary blip moves through the system, at that point, do you still have a freeloader argument, and if so, what is it?

If you agree that argument goes away within some number of years, can you explain why that temporary blip is reason enough to kill universal health insurance?

"Rich people in the US live better than anyone ever in history, even royalty. But waa-waa-waaa-waa. They have minions like the Reason Foundation or Heritage Foundation to weasel up principled sounding platforms for their craven avarice."

I would suggest that there is causal connection between the riches you note and the surly refusal to let government get too much control over such wealth as exists in a society.

FLYNNE! Welcome back! Sorry about your dad, congrats on the new job, hope the girls are well....

"I'm not sure people would be so eager to say, "Fuck 'em. Let it burn" had a few kids died in the fire instead of a few animals."

Monica, that is exactly WHY the fire department responded to the call. They had a duty to make sure there was no one trapped in the building and would have had a duty to rescue by law if there was in spite of the non payment. However, they had no duty to protect property and that is why they let it burn once they found out it was just a property fire.

@ David M.: "I can't decide I want collision coverage on my car after I've wrecked it."

-- Under ObamaCare you can do something similar. If an insurer sells “child only” hospitalization policies, it cannot refuse to sell a policy even if the child is in the ambulance or the ER. So, Louisville, KY, based Humana and Anthem BC/BS (the state’s largest health insurer) and other insurers decided to stop selling those policies (rather than raise the premiums on existing policy-holders). The Insurance Commissioner has ordered the insurers to attend a hearing to justify their action, because “the insurers’ decisions could force children needing coverage to turn to Kentucky Access, the state’s high-risk insurance pool.” “That ‘could prove disastrous’ to the program, *** ‘The current budget of Kentucky Access could not sustain the entry of several hundred children per month.’”
Insurers ordered to defend halting new "child-only" coverage, Louisville Courier-Journal (Sep 28, 2010), http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100928/BUSINESS/309280028/1008/NEWS01/Insurers+ordered+to+defend+halting+new+“child-only”+coverage

@ I R A Darth Aggie: "What's next? paramedics refusing to administer CPR because you're not a resident of the city??"

-- Check your facts DA, BEFORE commenting or you’ll display the arrogance of ignorance. There’s a county wide volunteer rescue dept. for EMS. The fire department was from the City of South Fulton. Different agencies under different local governments with different responsibilities.

@ MonicaP: "I'm not sure people would be so eager to say, "Fuck 'em. Let it burn" had a few kids died in the fire instead of a few animals."

-- The fire department’s policy is to fight fires when life is endangered. In the fire reported in the article no lives were endangered, only property damages. Did you get that straw man for your argument at a Wizard of Oz community theatre production or find it in a field?

It seems like most of us are in agreement...

1) Cranick should have paid the fee. Not a lot of sympathy for his loss... BUT...
2) The fire department should have put the fire out... NOT for Cranick's sake, but to avoid the danger of the fire spreading beyond his property... which it did.

Anyone disagree with either of those?

Monica, that is exactly WHY the fire department responded to the call. They had a duty to make sure there was no one trapped in the building and would have had a duty to rescue by law if there was in spite of the non payment.

Seems like a dangerous precedent to set. "Sir, we're not helping you. You haven't paid your fee." "But my grandma's trapped in the bathroom. I swear! You have to help her." Sounds like a great way to inspire people to endanger the lives of fire fighters looking for phantom victims.

-- The fire department’s policy is to fight fires when life is endangered.

Lives are always endangered when someone's home is burning to the ground. Feebie said it before when she said:

Far, far too much risk in terms of other houses being burnt to the ground and/or human/pet lives being put in jeopardy. All it would take is one gust of wind.

They sat there allowing a smaller fire to become a larger fire that, under the right circumstances, could have endangered the lives of everyone in that community and certainly caused their property values to take a tumble. I doubt that pile of ash is attractive.

Anyone disagree with either of those?

Sounds right to me.

The reason they want the pre-paid $75 is that allows the city to budget. They know they will, on average, have X number of households paying the coverage. That means -- we can afford the new fire engine this year.

These rural fire department can charge you as well should you end up in an accident in their district and they are called to respond. I've received a bill for such services in the past. I asked my brother-in-law, a fireman, who concurred. I also looked up the law. There was a court in Texas that upheld the latest ruling that these districts can in fact bill persons who do not pay into their tax pool for services rendered.

P.S. Yes I am another MarkD and I agree with the other MarkD on a staggering number of topics.

Freeloaders are those epeople who do not pay their fair share of taxes.

So, the government should tax the Sims?

A favorite emailer says they should have put out the fire and fined him so heavily he'd have wished they let it burn.

> They have minions like the Reason Foundation
> or Heritage Foundation to weasel up principled
> sounding platforms for their craven avarice.

We can tell that your life has been deeply pocked by horrible disappointments.

hey BOTU, you will be a very easy target for the coming revolution, but we do not have to wait that long, please come out, tell me where I can find you, and do away with one more worthless liberal prick

Also, I disagree with some of you.

Wiki says the population of this town is 2517. Also: "It is part of the Union City, TN–KY Micropolitan Statistical Area."

"Micropolitan" is a word new to me.

The point is, this is not a wealthy, presumptively integrated area... Certainly not like Oakland Hills, where you know you're going to be paying taxes for a huge array of civic services anyway. Their ties are tenuous enough that the people who you ask to risk their lives will ask you in return: "Are you part of this community? Are you in or out?"

Mostly this is about city folk forgetting what rural life is like. People move to the country 'cause they don't like them rev'nooers gettin' all up in they bizniss.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

Which means the Cranicks understand neither insurance nor cost.

Insurance pools risk, which is why it is possible for many people to pay a relatively little money for a low risk, high cost event.

Which gets us to that cost thing. The rate of fires has very little bearing on the cost of the infrastructure required to fight any given fire.

So, the appropriate means of costing any fire fighting event is the total cost of the infrastructure divided by the number of fires, not the incremental cost of fighting one additional fire.

I'll bet the Cranicks, among others is thinking in terms of the latter number, because the former might well approach the cost of their house.

Hence risk pooling, in which the Cranicks declined to participate, but wanted the fruits of.

It never pays to placate such rampaging idiocy.

Three dogs and one cat burned to death in this fire. That's just gross. Just curious if the police showed up if they would have shot the animals to prevent suffering or let them burn alive. $3 a bullet? Any takers?

Put out the fire on the house and then put a lien on it - take it over for Christ sakes. Eminent domain. But don't risk everyone else's house in the process and - I don't know how any human being could have not gone in an rescued the animals. What type of people could sit there and listen to pets burn to death...without opening a window or a door.

Just sickening. For real.

So for a $75 fee they lost how much in annual property taxes?

Sorry, this is just fucking retarded.

I've read of this. The house owner didn't demand a "free" house saving. He said he was willing to pay whatever it costs, but the firefighters still refused. Compare it to health insurance. You pay insurance premiums so that if you get sick, the insurance company pays (most) the hospital. However, if you don't have insurance, you pay everything. That's fair.

Now, imagine getting sick without insurance. You go to the hospital and tell them you have no insurance but are willing and able to pay for the care you need. However, the doctors refuse to treat you because you never paid for insurance.

*That* is what the firefighters did. It would have been proper for the firefighters to put out the fire then bill the homeowner, which would be significantly more than $75. To have let the house burn is akin to letting a patient die because he didn't have health insurance.

Note: I am not advocating Obamacare. I'm just saying the homeowner was willing to pay the cost of saving his house but was still refused just as it would be proper for a patient without health insurance to pay for his medical bills but the doctors refused.

"Three dogs and one cat burned to death in this fire. That's just gross. Just curious if the police showed up if they would have shot the animals to prevent suffering or let them burn alive. $3 a bullet? Any takers?

Put out the fire on the house and then put a lien on it - take it over for Christ sakes. Eminent domain. But don't risk everyone else's house in the process and - I don't know how any human being could have not gone in an rescued the animals. What type of people could sit there and listen to pets burn to death...without opening a window or a door.

Just sickening. For real."

Why didn't the homeowners rescue the animals while they were getting out themselves? They were ultimately probably the only ones that had a good chance of doing so.
Very few people or animals ever "burn to death" in a fire. They mostly die of smoke inhalation and well before the firefighters ever get there in rural areas. Too many people on this board are equating "fire rescue" as the same thing as putting out the fire. They are not the same thing and it seems like certain people are being deliberately obtuse in order to set up a strawman argument. There is a reason that firemen do rescue first and fight the fire after. The first reason, putting water on a fire creates even more smoke making it even more dangerous to enter a burning building and find anyone trapped inside. The second is the time element. A firefighter should not be risking his life to save a cat or a dog, only a person. After the rescue is over, then you attempt to extinguish the fire and keep it from spreading. Too many movies have given people unrealistic expectations about what a firefighter can and should do in this situation. Having been to rural Tennessee, it is not southern California. I think the firefighters are well trained enough to know when they need to put a fire out to keep it from catching the neighbors house on fire and when they should just let it burn and contain it. Most of these rural properties sit in the middle of two to 20 or more well watered acres and there is simply not a high degree of risk to the neighbors property.
Putting a lien on the house might work for services rendered but if you know anything about secured transactions, you would know that if the house already has a bank mortgage on it, you are at best second in line, more likely third, and fat chance of collecting any money anytime soon. All a lien does is allow you to take your money when the property is sold, IF it sells for enough money to cover both your lien and any prior liens that are ahead of yours in precedence.

This is idiotic. What if it were a duplex, and one side paid the fee and the other didn't?

Applying this police services, which is only the next logical step, illustrates the idiocy. Two people get hit by a hit and run drunk driver, one paid the police fee, the other didn't. How do you investigate for one and not the other?

If a fire breaks out in the neighborhood, the firefighters put it out. Period. None of this who paid the fee and who didn't. Taxes are just fine to cover this service. Whoever thought fees were a good idea for firefighters has their head so far up their ass, they could crawl up inside themselves and disappear completely. Which might be a good idea.

The article doesn't say how bad the fire at the Cranick's was when the firefighters arrived - only that they arrived to save a neighbor's house (that presumably had caught on fire at that point).

If the fire was too far along at the Cranick's by the time the firefighters arrived, they couldn't have gone in to save the pets anyway (and they probably couldn't have saved the Cranick's house at that point either).

I doubt people who's job it is to risk their lives saving other people's lives and property (including pets) just stood by and callously listened to the pets die a horrible death.

However he too stood by the subscription policy, arguing that offering a pay-as-you-go service would mean upfront costs could not be met.

You mean you can't just grab some guys off the street, run to the hardware store, and buy a bunch of extinguishers and be on your way? You have to purchase equipment and put in an infrastructure and and train people beforehand?

Some things require having a force of professionals standing by ready in advance to do the job - firefighting, military defense, medical emergencies, et al. For these things, you have to pay for the equipment, training, facilities, and administrative structures in advance of actually needing them.

If a fire breaks out in the neighborhood, the firefighters put it out. Period. None of this who paid the fee and who didn't. Taxes are just fine to cover this service.

The Cranick's are not in the neighborhood. The city is paying for the firefighters and the Cranicks's live outside the city and don't pay the city taxes that pay for the firefighters.

The city has no obligation to fight fires in the Cranick's neighborhood. But, they will if you pay $75 a year.

What type of people could sit there and listen to pets burn to death...without opening a window or a door.

Just sickening. For real.

Posted by: Feebie

Durring a SWAT raid on a house to serve a civil TRAFFIC court warrant Arizona's Maricop County Sherrif's Officers managed to somehow set fire to the home and when a dog came running out of the house used their mace to drive it back inside and into the flames.

While they were lauging about the dogs anguished crys(according to half a dozen witnesses) the SWAT teams armoured van/tank hybrid went rolling down the street, crashed into a couple of cars, and just barely missed chrushing a local child

"Putting a lien on the house might work for services rendered but if you know anything about secured transactions, you would know that if the house already has a bank mortgage on it, you are at best second in line, more likely third, and fat chance of collecting any money anytime soon. "

Wage garnishment, judgement, ransack the house and take over the cars and valuables and hold an auction. Bleed them dry and hold them responsible. Future earnings. I. Don't. Care.

Just don't put everyone else's homes in jeopardy (and the life and safety of others) because someone didn't pay a $75.00 fee! SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS? Are you freakin' kidding me? Seriously.

It should have been established - Pay the $75.00 or be responsible for paying an arbitrary (adjusted for overtime pay, cost of water, equipment rental by the hour, debris removal... and a round of drinks when the fire has been put out) current market cost of putting out the fire.

It's just creepy. What happened if this were a gas main like the one that blew in San Bruno?

And for the record, I don't think anyone should risk their lives for a pet - but I'd really like more information here. When did they know this homeowner didn't pay the fee?

Luj, just check this one out.

http://dogblog.dogster.com/2010/10/04/police-shoot-arthritic-11-year-old-lab-in-her-own-backyard/

It's just absolute stupidity of this I am pissed at. This $75.00 fee bit defies logic and is not remotely comparable to health insurance (Obamacare).

These firefighters (along with the police in the article above) seem to be remiss of any common sense.

Again, how much will this city/township now loose in annual property taxes? If the insurance doesn't pay for this rebuild -- in this market, who the hell else will? That will be an open lot for how many years?

It's absolutely absurd.

I live in the township outside a village in Ohio. I can see the backside of the village from my place. When I go to vote in the village I am asked if I'm township or village. There are different issues to vote on depending upon which I am located in. They also have 2 fire trucks and an ambulance.

But if I need emergency services, it is the township's volunteer fire department that provides the service.

This is the same type thing. The fire department provides fire services for the 2157 people of the village/town. To get the services of the town to extend out the countryside they need the money. (BTW, when was the last time you priced out a fire truck -- Hint: They ain't cheap.) Just the gas bill to go out is probably $75. So what the town needs to do is plan. And without the revenue, the service would be limited to the city. So it is a matter buying insurance -- not reparations.

Again, how much will this city/township now loose in annual property taxes?

None, since they weren't getting any from the Cranick's in the first place.

There is no county-wide fire service. The city of South Fulton has a fire department. For the payment of a fee (paid in advance), the South Fulton city fire department will leave the city limits and head into rural areas of the county to fight house fires.

The Cranicks, living outside the city of South Fulton (where there is no county-wide firefighting service), elected not to pay the fee. The city fire department of South Fulton elected not to fight a fire on their property.

Ok. So what would happen if a brush fire started in the middle of the township outside of the city boarders?

Who would put out that fire - or would they wait for it to hit the city limits?

To not control a fire and risk the chance of it spreading to a larger fire and risking other homes (who did pay the $75.00) is just patently absurd.

Around here we have a lot of people who build their new home in the woods. They do not necessarily follow the advice to clear the trees a certain number of yards away from their house.

Sometimes they build in areas where environmentalists are fighting having new roads put in or trees cut down. (Which is pretty much anywhere, these days. We're a contentious bunch of people here, for sure.)

I don't know what their insurance costs, but I know it's getting harder for the firefighters to get to them, so I hope they have it, because the sympathy level for the owners is pretty low.

My own sympathy level depends on the situation. I read another story about these folks that says they were burning trash on their property. I don't recall it saying how close it was to the house, or if it was windy, but it sounds like it was caused by their own negligence in any case.

It's the pets I feel sorry for.

"None, since they weren't getting any from the Cranick's in the first place."

Ok, gotcha. But I still think this is a dangerous game of Schadenfreude to allow the house to burn down rather than put it out and bill the homeowner the full amount of the cost to fight their house fire.

If you don't purchase health insurance and then are denied coverage for cancer - in all likelihood you are not going to be taking down your neighbors with you for your irresponsible and poor decision.

Flynne!!! Welcome back!! The Oyster Fest on Long Island? Its a good one!!

Flynne!!! Welcome back!! The Oyster Fest on Long Island? Its a good one!!

Ron-

There is a little punk in Connecticut, Brian Corbino, that you can engage in fisticuffs. He also posits himself as a tough guy...in chat rooms.

I had a rich friend growing up, and we would go to a local country club, and talk tough at the bar there.

I knew that was chickenpoop, but I did it anyway as I was young and stupid, and there were girls there who appeared impressed. Having gone to public schools in the City of Los Angeles, I knew some real monsters who went on to play college football, or jail, and so I knew what was really tough.

But as feeble as bragging at the counrty club bar was, it was a tad higher than talking tough in a chat room. Who knows? Maybe a janitor or tennis instructor could have taken a swing at me back in my country club days.

But you Ron? You are completely safe. Keep talking tough.

I cannot believe how many people are blaming the contractually obligated firefighters for actually adhering to the terms of the contract between city and county homeowners ... while at the same time making excuses for the stupid homeowner who failed Basic Responsibility 101 for himself, his family and his belongings.

Why you're turning a black-and-white issue into various shades of gray is beyond me.

They offered a service for a price. He chose not to participate in that service. 'Forgetfulness' is not a reason. It's a sorry excuse.

End of story.

Everything else is just a bunch of hand-wringing by people who feel bad for someone who fucked up all by himself.

It should have been established - Pay the $75.00 or be responsible for paying an arbitrary (adjusted for overtime pay, cost of water, equipment rental by the hour, debris removal... and a round of drinks when the fire has been put out) current market cost of putting out the fire.

Okay, imagine if everyone takes the opportunity you have handed to the Craniumless's.

There will be no fire department to respond to any fires.

Another way to look at this, which the quote demands, is to charge for fire services only per incident.

How much do you figure that is going to be?

Look, the bottom line is that these people knew the rules, ignored them, and paid a (very!) high price. It's really unfortunate, but there are consequences for willfully ignoring the rules our society sets in place. It may be that some of us feel that this rule, and other rules, are unfair...so GO VOTE. Otherwise, deal with the rules as they are set and be prepared to face the consequences if you don't. Frankly, I don't feel that I should have to pay my state ungodly amounts of money each year to put a little tag on my license plate. But I do it, because I know if I don't, the law says I can get my car impounded.

My father was a national park service ranger, and there were several times that he had to go out on search and rescues that put his life in immediate danger. 99.9% of the time, these idiots that he was going out to help were in dangerous situations because they were careless and ignorned rules that were there for their protection. An average rescue out of a park can run over $10,000. I don't think that any taxpayer should be paying for that. Act stupid, pay for it.

As for Amy's original posting on insurance, I don't understand why we don't do health insurance they way we do life insurance. Base what you pay on what kind of shape you're in. Fat and smoke? You get to pay $500 a month while someone like Amy pays $75.

"Okay, imagine if everyone takes the opportunity you have handed to the Craniumless's.

There will be no fire department to respond to any fires."

But the people within the town pay the taxes for the fire department services. It's people outside the township that can have those services extended for a $75.00 fee.

"Why you're turning a black-and-white issue into various shades of gray is beyond me."

Because absolute thinking is for five year olds. This is a fire. It can kill people. If this were something less pervasive and deadly, I'd say you'd have a point... I'd probably join you in the celebration of "this guy had what was coming to him"...because he did.

For the life of me, however, I can't bring myself to think that jeopardizing other peoples property by risking an out of control fire is worth it for a $75.00 fee.

It's idiotic.

Besides, do these people pay any local taxes? Any at all? Does any of it (ANY) go to the fire department? How does their police services operate?

I think this homeowner deserves being called a lot of things. I just don't think letting a fire burn and risking other peoples property and safety is a good idea...ever.

"Okay, imagine if everyone takes the opportunity you have handed to the Craniumless's.

There will be no fire department to respond to any fires."

But the people within the town pay the taxes for the fire department services. It's people outside the township that can have those services extended for a $75.00 fee.

"Why you're turning a black-and-white issue into various shades of gray is beyond me."

Because absolute thinking is for five year olds. This is a fire. It can kill people. If this were something less pervasive and deadly, I'd say you'd have a point... I'd probably join you in the celebration of "this guy had what was coming to him"...because he did.

For the life of me, however, I can't bring myself to think that jeopardizing other peoples property by risking an out of control fire is worth it for a $75.00 fee.

It's idiotic.

Besides, do these people pay any local taxes? Any at all? Does any of it (ANY) go to the fire department? How does their police services operate?

I think this homeowner deserves being called a lot of things. I just don't think letting a fire burn and risking other peoples property and safety is a good idea...ever.

Welcome back Flynne!!! Are you talking about the OysterFest on Long Island?? That's a great one!!! Congrats on the job!!

But the people within the town pay the taxes for the fire department services. It's people outside the township that can have those services extended for a $75.00 fee.

Yes, I know. That changes nothing.

(BTW, response times are the reason.)

By your line of reasoning, there is no reason that anyone outside the town should pay to be part of the risk pool, which increases the costs to those within the risk pool, while providing no additional benefit.

Exactly like those who decline to be part of the risk pool when it comes to medical care, but expect to get it when they need it.

As a concept, personal responsibility isn't hard to grasp.

But it appears beyond way too many people to actually exercise it.

Aw, spanks you guys! Good to be back!

Nah, Kristen, I'm talking 'bout the MILFORD Oyster Festival, here in Milford, CT. On the north side of the Long Island Sound. But I've heard the Long Island Oyter Fest is cool too, as is the one in Norwalk, CT. We Yankees must love our ersters, eh? LOL!

Yeah, I got a job at Yale, believe it or not. Senior Admin. Assistant. Part time for now, we'll see how it pans out. I'd love to go full time, that'd be great, but I'm thinking I'm going to have to start taking the train. Parking in New Haven is a stone bitch.

Ya know, I was thinking that the Cranicks might've been thinking "It'll never happen" re: a fire on their property, but they got spanked, big time. Which should serve as a lesson. As I said before, I'd rather pay for the service and not need it, than not pay for it and need it. Because even though "it'll never happen" is a nice thought, that's not reality.

Welcome back, Flynne.

I don't see anyone defending this douche canoe. He is responsible for letting his house be burned down, getting his pets killed and endangering his neighbors and their property, and he should be spanked hard in a platonic-but-angry sort of way.

That Tennessee would allow any populated county to go without fire service is appalling. Tax it and consider it the price of living in modern civilization.

This situation isn't like car insurance or health insurance at all. In both of those cases, the family would have the option of paying through the nose for service if they lost the bet.

"This situation isn't like car insurance or health insurance at all. In both of those cases, the family would have the option of paying through the nose for service if they lost the bet."

Yes and now they will pay for a new house that may not be covered by their insurance since they started the fire by burning trash in the yard and failed to subscribe to the fire service, same thing as paying your own medical bills, they pay their fire loss, sounds like justice to me.

> It's just creepy. What happened if this were
> a gas main like the one that blew in San Bruno?

You're right about letting the pets die, but again, you can't compare this to what would happen in an typically incorporated area. You don't need to work that this is a scheme of government that's going to spread like the flu in a hospital. This is a place where the development of government through common interest hasn't developed yet. The patient is still in the womb.

> This is a fire. It can kill people.

The world is full of darkness and distress. This turns up in international affairs all the time... People apply American standards of justice and commerce to areas that are not America. Every time the United Nations talks about sending troops to a hotspot, the troops they have in mind are from Ohio and Kansas. Eventually it's fair to ask for a little commonality.

"Ok, gotcha. But I still think this is a dangerous game of Schadenfreude to allow the house to burn down rather than put it out and bill the homeowner the full amount of the cost to fight their house fire. "

Yeah, but what happens when the fire department puts out a fire and then the homeowner says, "Can't pay, sorry, sue me"? It's emergency-room freeloaders all over again.

Wait, was this in Tenn? I thought it was in the UK??

"That Tennessee would allow any populated county to go without fire service is appalling."

Setting aside this plea for mandatory social services, just what do you consider "fire service"?

Refer to my post above, re "Save The Chimney".

Huh-Union CIty. That's not too far from where my mom lives. I can assure you the man could not in fact have paid whatever it cost to put it out then. And no doubt the firemen knew it well. Which doesn't change the fact that he knew the rules, didn't play by them, then wanted a mulligan on it. Priceline wouldn't change my reservation for this weekend because it's their stated policy not to, even though I reaaaaally wanted them to. No different than this, IMO.

"Three dogs and one cat burned to death in this fire. That's just gross. "

Are you saying firemen should enter a burning dwelling and risk their lived for animals? Surely not. I love my little furball, but no way I'm letting a human die for her. Nor shold anyone else expect it. I'm not even sure PETA goes that far.

Monica, that is exactly WHY the fire department responded to the call. They had a duty to make sure there was no one trapped in the building and would have had a duty to rescue by law if there was in spite of the non payment.

Not so. They didn't respond at all until the fire spread to the neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee.

"Not so. They didn't respond at all until the fire spread to the neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee."

The accounts seem to differ on this. However if they were told there was no humans in the building that was burning, they had no duty under common law or otherwise to respond as it was only property damage at that point.

"By your line of reasoning, there is no reason that anyone outside the town should pay to be part of the risk pool, which increases the costs to those within the risk pool, while providing no additional benefit."

You are completely missing the point. (And if they don't participate, they can always be charged full price - thus the City and fire department wouldn't be out a penny).

I work in risk, and in insurance - so I completely understand how this financial risk transfer thingy works, mmmkay. I also do fire safety visits (about 15 so far this year) of the facilities in my company - nationally. This is the part of the insurance that wants to PREVENT, contain, or minimize a loss before the event happens (or before the event gets to a total loss).

There are a lot of things that can go bad - really bad in a fire. Common household products (cans of paint, fire extinguishers, cans of air, oxygen tanks, gas cans)that if the fire gets hot enough can spell big trouble. These people's decision not to pay $75 could impact a lot of people in some really bad ways.

Now, if you were their neighbor, and their house was going up in flames and the fire department refused to come out (and when they did, said they would only be there in the case of your house catching fire) how exactly would you feel about that after you paid your $75? Given that:

1. The hotter this fire gets the more potential hazards arise, like the possibility of a flying W-D 40 can bursting through a window only to hit your roof while spraying flames everywhere...
2. The firefighters are sitting there actually WAITING for your house to catch fire FIRST before they move in - instead of stopping it now.
3. If this had been a grass fire next to your place instead of a house they would be stopping it BEFORE it got to you.
4. One little gust or change of wind in the wrong direction could result in your home going up like a roman candle.

Now. What they did defies logic, Hey Skip, not what I am saying.

Putting the health and safety of OTHER NEIGHBORS at risk - in my estimation is GROSS negligence on the part of this fire department. These people were willing to pay the amount of the service at a premium (not the $75.00) - so how would this be different if the services were privatized. "Hey, you either buy into an annual fee or you pay it full cost?" Since they didn't purchase the insurance, they now pay it at full cost, out of pocket...plus some for the Fire Departments troubles.

(If you want to relate it to healthcare, then this would then be like refusing an uninsured person treatment because they didn't want to pay the insurance but would rather sell their home to pay for it out of pocket - what does it matter how they finance the service - right?)

Also a follow up to this story. It seems that while they were letting this home (and all pets inside) burn to friggin crisp, that the fire chief was getting asked a lot of questions from reporters. He refused to answer them and then called the County Sheriff to come remove the reporters from the scene - guess what, the Sheriff refused to show... Why do you think that is?

There is more to this story than is being reported. You don't mess around with fires. Anyone who does and wants to play "but that's not fair because Jimmy didn't pay his $75" is just flat out missing their marbles.

"Are you saying firemen should enter a burning dwelling and risk their lived for animals? Surely not. I love my little furball, but no way I'm letting a human die for her. Nor shold anyone else expect it. I'm not even sure PETA goes that far."

Read my follow up.

Via Hotair:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/05/quotes-of-the-day-473/

You are completely missing the point. (And if they don't participate, they can always be charged full price)

The point here is how to deal with free-riding.

IIRC, these houses lie outside the city limits, which means they also lie outside its tax limits; the area in question is unincorporated.

In order to provide coverage to an unincorporated area, the city needs a larger fire department than they would otherwise.

Which gets to "full price". Divide the cost of a fire department by the number of structure fires each year.

That is your full price, which undoubtedly exceeds the cost of the house.

Now, if you were their neighbor, and their house was going up in flames and the fire department refused to come out (and when they did, said they would only be there in the case of your house catching fire) how exactly would you feel about that after you paid your $75? Given that:

etc

I look at rural Tennessee from one vantage point or another virtually every day.

A well hit three wood isn't enough to put your neighbor's windows at risk.

So everything you typed is true enough, but irrelevant.

As for the risk of a brush fire spreading to any (paying) neighbor's property, the FD handled that just fine.

My first thought when I read this blog item? "Since when is paying for fire service optional?" Call me naive, but I was not aware there was such a thing. You know, in order to avoid situations such as this.

As thrilling as it is to see a story from my home state in the UK news (this may not be as bad as the Shelbyville mom who sent her adopted kid back to Russia), no one in this situation comes off well. I want to give everyone involved a big ol' smack upside the head. I agree with Feebie in that, were this some sort of damage that would in no way endanger anyone else's property or life, I'd be firmly on the side of the county on this. But Feebie's right: it's not just the Cranicks' property at stake. The firefighters were adhering to the policy, which I can't fault them for on principle. That's why it's a horrible policy. I'm with whoever posted above about where the money for police service is coming from. I'd bet taxes. Lord knows we pay enough down here in order to make up for the lack of a state income tax. I just paid for my new tags and my wheel tax, and my wallet was noticeably lighter afterward. I happily support the use of that money to fund emergency services.

The salient detail from the article: Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.

Since there are only 32000 people in the whole of Obion County, I'd guess that the expense Mr. Vowell speaks of spreads to county-wide fire service in general. Surely, with something that can spread to other people's homes regardless of whether they'd paid their fees, there's a policy somewhere better than this. Hell, tack on $75 to the property taxes for the rural areas that can't be served. And, yes, the neighbor had paid his fee and got his part of the fire taken care of. But he wouldn't have had to if paying for fire service was non-optional.

I know we have lots of the government-ain't-gettin'-any-more-of-my-money-for-something-I-can-do-myself types out here, but it's hard to put out a property fire on your own. Make them pay for it in some fashion like the rest of us. Other people's property and lives are at stake.

IIRC, these houses lie outside the city limits, which means they also lie outside its tax limits; the area in question is unincorporated.

The houses are outside the city, but, if my quick research is correct, there is a flat property tax rate for Obion county, with extra city taxes added on. So they are paying taxes for the county (including wheel taxes and sales tax), but there is no county-wide fire service in place. It has to be more an issue of the expense of serving few people spread over an entire county, which is a legitimate concern even though I think there must be a better way.

From Feebie's link: The argument from non-excludability suggests a policy that doesn’t leave fire protection optional: Obion County should either levy a tax to pay for fire protection for all unincorporated lands, or South Fulton should cancel its opt-in service for unincorporated properties altogether. But neither argument forgives free-riding.

Yes.

I get annoyed when people use the expression "Obamacare", as if Obama is some kind of a culprit here. Amy, since you're such a frankophile, why don't you call it "Eurocare", as this system of collective solidarity exists all throughout continental Europe, it works very well, and it's not "social medicine". (I said it works on the continent, not in the UK, which has a different system.) You are now in the transition period where some people, like Amy, have been paying in their whole lives, whereas others are just now trying to enter the system. So right now you feel it's terribly unfair. Yes, some folks are too poor or too dumb or too whatever to voluntarily pay into the system. It's a question of mentality, and here, there's a stronger mentality for the collective good. Well, make health insurance obligatory and, just a few years down the line, you'll have universal health care for the vast majority of citizens. I know I'm risking getting tarred and feathered by this crowd here, but I just wanted to throw in that, from a European perspective, your stance sounds very, very backward and reactionary.

Oh, and then, America, while you're at it making long overdue changes, take the plunge and introduce the metric system, too, ok? Just think of how this would stimulate the economy ;-)

So go ahead and roast me, everyone. Some of you more thoughtful ones might just like to pause and think, though, about which system is actually better for the vast majority of people. Yeah, there are the handful of homeless people and derelicts in European cities, but not the droves of formerly middle-class people forced to live in their cars. Shameful.

"That is your full price, which undoubtedly exceeds the cost of the house."

I just read that they received a check from their insurance company for the full policy limits. The City should subrogate against the insurance company for a stipulated amount. Charge whatever, garnish wages. They will think twice about being late on a payment. I am not defending the free-riding homeowner (but I do feel really bad about his pets).

I am saying (much like #6 above) that this is a really bad policy. Horribly bad. And it could jeopardize the neighbors.

To me this looks like it is a pissing match between the county and the city and perhaps even the union/fire department. Can't wait to see what the City Manager's statement is tomorrow.

If the pissing match only left the homeowner without their property - thats one thing, but considering reality - there ARE other people within this neighborhood to think about, it deserves more than a "Let it Burn" philosophy.

Marie, Obama is the culprit here. If it is such a great freakin' bill than the use of "Obamacare" shouldn't really be seen as a negative, right? If it's so great, why would you be so annoyed?

But the truth is its a big fat turd with that man-childs name on it. It got crammed through the House and Senate when the majority of the citizenry was against it. He played a pivotal role in getting it pushed through with that witch of a house speaker, so he owns it.

Also, this ain't Europe, this is America. If I wanted to live in Europe, I would. And socialized medicine does NOT work in many places, like the UK and Canada. It is in shambles...and certainly doesn't work with a population as large as it is here in the US.

If everyone thinks that Europes care is sooo great (have you ever experienced it first hand) then why don't they move there. Socialized medicine is the antithesis of what makes America, America.

Feebie, I'll repeat it for you slowly, I'm not talking about socialized medicine. The system on the continent is not socialized medicine. You might not know the difference, but it's huge. It's more like, let me see, I'll try to really, really simplify it for you, like a nationwide obligatory Kaiser Permanente. Everybody pays in, and a very good level of care results. Yes, I've experienced it first-hand, and it's a very good system. Of course, it faces challenges and it's not perfect. I'm just saying it's better. Way better.

Your other statements reflect a pretty unfortunate attitude. Like, just because something works well somewhere else, this is America, not Europe, so why should we adopt it? We're AMERICANS, dammit. If you ask me, resistance to change in the face of all reason is the antithesis of what makes America America.

And where on earth do you get this man-child thing? What an absurd statement. I'm not sure there's any point in pursuing this discussion, as your mind is already made up, based on some erroneous information or assumptions on your part. I really don't get the feeling that you have any idea what you're talking about. You just come back with this knee-jerk patriotic reaction, which is just silly.

Anyway, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to some of the more informed and thoughtful contributors to this site. Maybe some of them have something useful to say about this.

My idea of an ideal situation would be that America would adopt whatever is best, not keep doing what's it's been doing and refusing to improve out of some misguided "not invented here" mentality. Or wait, your attitude is more like "America - love it leave it". Well, that's not how change is made, and clearly, something's got to change because the system is very broken now.

Sorry for the typo, I meant "love it or leave it", but you knew that, right?

"Feebie, I'll repeat it for you slowly, I'm not talking about socialized medicine."

I really fucking detest the way liberals approach an argument. It couldn't possibly be because their idea sucks...it's because you didn't say it slowly enough...or something.

"It's more like, let me see, I'll try to really, really simplify it for you, like a nationwide obligatory Kaiser Permanente. Everybody pays in, and a very good level of care results."

I'm in insurance (licensed agent). I am familiar with the process (intimately). It's socialized healthcare.

"Anyway, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to some of the more informed and thoughtful contributors to this site. Maybe some of them have something useful to say about this."

Feeling out of your league or something? Strange that you didn't say to whom you were speaking -- specifically and that you even foreshadowed getting harpooned or something...maybe you were just being manipulative, eh?

"Well, that's not how change is made, and clearly, something's got to change because the system is very broken now."

So how open are you to actually exploring any other options but your "intellectual-socialized" ones? There is plenty that is being done, but if you are being spoon-fed from the Marxism trough I seriously doubt you are able to truly grasp reality or any logical avenues available to fix this problem.

Love it or leave it...? Ya, if it is unconstitutional, I don't want it here. This is precisely why our Founding Fathers came here and developed our own society and culture full of rugged individualists...not a bunch of pansies who need a wet nurse and government handouts paid for by their neighbors.

*Sigh*. Oh dear. Next commenter, please.

I doubt that 65% of his paycheck is deducted as income tax. Income tax presumably makes up just part of his deductions. And maybe I neglected to mention it, but it's not socialized medicine we're talking about here. It's not provided by the state. It's provided by insurance companies. Slight difference.

America's military budget is just a bit off-topic here, but some people (and a lot of those people live in a place that starts with an E and ends with UROPE) think that starting ludicrous wars is one way to overspend. I said "starting", and I meant "George Bush & Co." Obama is left mopping up the mess, and a mess it is.

Anyway, Feebie, you sure make a lot of assumptions about me without knowing the first thing about me. Oh, but you don't appear to let facts get in the way, do you?

> So go ahead and roast me, everyone.

Ok.

> this system of collective solidarity exists all
> throughout continental Europe, it works very
> well, and it's not "social medicine".

It doesn't extend to their own national defense, which is how they have enough money to pretend to medicate each other... The USA takes a big expense of being a grown-up nation out of their calculation.

No, seriously, they're welcome. I'm not bitter.

> Shameful.

Don't cluck... We're not convinced you're decent or compassionate enough to get away with it.

Marie, you might want to move on here. You started out with the "I have a righteous, though unpopular, opinion and am expecting to be attacked for speaking my mind" attitude and moved into an unwarranted attack on Feebie. You started out on the defense and when presented with a reasonable argument (not saying whether I agree or disagree, but the information was presented rationally), you give the HTML version of a self-righteous eye roll. Petulance is not really conducive to intelligent discourse.

> The City should subrogate against the insurance
> company for a stipulated amount. Charge whatever,
> garnish wages.

Stipulated where? Like I said above, I agree in principle... It would have been better to put out the fire and then fine the owner so heavily that he'd have wished the house HAD burned down.

But understand –and this is what makes it a little ironic to be seeing all the energy from you about this, because you're a conservative person– subrogations and charges and garnishments are weapons deployed by large, established bureaucracies. They aren't the tools of a loosely connected cluster of villages, which seems to be what we're talking about here. These are just a few neighbors who agree to have truly limited reliance on each other. Oakland it very specifically AIN'T.

And maybe I neglected to mention it, but it's not socialized medicine we're talking about here. It's not provided by the state. It's provided by insurance companies. Slight difference. -Marie

Kinda like how the government doesnt provide mail service its the post office?

Marie if everyone is forced to pay ubder the threat of law enforncement then it is indeed the government. Operating theu complict shell companies dont change that fact

And again, what do any of you mean by "fire service"?

There's a lot of argument above on what might happen or should happen - as if a) this case would be typical, or b) the FD can actually prevent damage!

They can't.

Hey, you guys turning this into a political brouhaha--please take note that this particular county has had this particular rule since 1990.

Didn't read all the posts... the fire department should have had a plan for how to respond to a delinquent payor.

Why did they even respond to the call?

Ethically, if not legally, one could argue that their first responsibility is saving lives and property. And what if there was something really valuable in the house - live humans, a panacea, or Amelia Earhart? That would presumably overrule the $75.

This is why there are taxes and/or laws that require people to buy insurance.

If you can't afford an extra $75 in taxes a year, don't own a home in a rural area. End of story.

DaveG, they responded because the neighbor's house was in danger, and they did pay their $75.00.

In comparing notes with my husband on the different articles we read, I learned that the fire was caused by the son burning trash on the property, and he was arrested for punching out the fire chief later that day.

I hope there was a thick layer of guilt mixed with that righteous fury.

Didn't read all the posts... the fire department should have had a plan for how to respond to a delinquent payor.

the Cranick's were not delinquent payers. They opted not to pay at all.

They live in an area in which you have to pay extra for firefighting service and they opted not to pay. So, they didn't get firefighting service.

Well, that's not how change is made, and clearly, something's got to change because the system is very broken now.

How is it "broken?" Because someone who opts not to pay for health insurance has to go to the emergency room for medical care. Even so, he's still getting some of the best medical care in the world.

In the entirety of the health insurance / Obamacare debates, no one complained about the quality of medical care in this country. The complaint was about the rising cost of health insurance and the cost of planning for and providing medical care to the uninsured (many of whom, like the Cranicks, have opted out of paying the upfront costs of creating a system ready to take care of them in the hopes the existing system [paid for by others] will take care of them when they need it).

"Didn't read all the posts... the fire department should have had a plan for how to respond to a delinquent payor."

They do. They don't put out the fire.

"Ethically, if not legally, one could argue that their first responsibility is saving lives and property."

Saving lives, yes. Property? Why? The homeowner made the decision not to buy that service?

*Sigh*. Oh dear. Next commenter, please.

Hey, you asked to be roasted, didn't you? Now that you get your wish, you start whining.

> *Sigh*. Oh dear. Next commenter, please.

Kishke's right... That is the most repugnant kind of clucking: A fake weary exhalation, a fake expression of suppressed distress, and a fake imperial call for the next amusement... with a fake courtesy affixed, just to seal the condescension.

I hate that shit.

Here's a good article that addresses the whole ideological debate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Interesting quotes: "I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded.

Cranick's fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990.

These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton's firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

----
So note that there was NOT a close-by house, but rather a neighboring FIELD. And Cranick KNEW they weren't coming or he wouldn't have spent so much time trying to put out the fire himself with a garden hose before calling 911.

I heard an Obion County man on a radio show this morning say that the exact situation happened two years ago (they let a non-payers house burn) and the policy was fully reviewed and it was decided that they would retain it.

Also he said the fee was established after a tax increase for providing county services was voted down.

It would seem that many of you live in urban areas, but in rural areas, house ARE far away from each other, and far away from the towns. Many volunteer fire departments will respond to any calls (I have friends - and also read Population 485 by Michael Perry) but this is a MUNICIPAL fire department of the nearby town. When you choose to live in a rural area, you choose to live at some risk. It takes a long time for ambulances to get to you, there are no fire hydrants, and you can't walk to school. It's your choice.

Good quote in the article - do the people in Lubbock, TX expect NYPD to come do their homicide investigations?

Tn also has subscription service to life flight. I think you pay $250 and are covered for life. Only an idiot wouldn't. BUT, they will still transport you, you're just on the hook for the bill. (I imagine they're rarely paid, so they really push subscribing).

All my family there has the lifeflight member stickers on their cars and house windows. I bought the subscription for my mom-it's the gift that keeps on giving, when you live a good 2 hours from ANY trauma center.

"as this system of collective solidarity exists all throughout continental Europe, it works very well, and it's not 'social medicine'.

Er, Marie, you do realize that the first half of that sentence directly contradicts the second half... As for as how well the system works, tell that to the 10,000 French citizens who died a few years ago because the temperature got up to a level that Americans in the South would regard as a moderately warm day.

In some ways this is like the Gulf Oil Spill... there are a bunch of states that continuously rail against big government, against industry regulation, against environmental regulation... and then they get a big oil spill and complain that the government isn't responding enough or doing enough to help them.

The thing is, like a fire, an oil spill doesn't know to only hit the states that don't want restrictive environmental laws, and could spread to other places that do want the protections.

Dave... do you think that is because of France's health care, or do you think it is because the French are not acclimated to such temperatures? Do you think if a heat wave had hit someplace, say Alaska, that doesn't tend to have such temperatures, the results would have been better?

Personally my opinion is it is because of the European aversion to air conditioners... the temps don't get high often enough to warrant them, so few places have them. In the South, don't most people have AC?

Do you think if a heat wave had hit someplace, say Alaska, that doesn't tend to have such temperatures, the results would have been better?

I do. During this heatwave, families were on their August vacation and didn't come rushing home to check on or rescue grandma - expecting the government to do it.

During a similar heat wave in Chicago that happened around the same time, the death toll was much lower.

Thanks for that comment. I was gonna point that out, but lost energy. I think of that summer every time someone talks about France being a sexually sophisticated paradise of social and familial connectedness. "Check on the old folks, drop by with a bucket of ice" is a routine plea on American TV & radio during heat waves.

NicoleK, another reason so many people died was because of the vacation laws France has for government employees. In France, government employees are entitled to x number of vacation weeks a year (I can't remember the exact number). In addition, employees who are on vacation cannot by forced to come back early if there is an emergency, nor can those who are scheduled to go on vacation be prevented from doing so even during an emergency situation. In the US, they could be threatened with being fired if they didn't return to work/stay at work during an emergency, but this is illegal in France.

Because French doctors and nurses are employed by the government, they were able to stay on their vacations or leave to go on their vacations even when the hospitals were overwhelmed with heatwave victims. There were not enough doctors and nurses to care for all the victims because so many employees were on their government-guaranteed vacations.

Right. See? It couldn't be helped... It was VACATION time....

And Nicole, I might remind you that air conditioning is a relatively recent invention, yet I know of no incident of tens of thousands of Americans dying during any heat wave during the 19th or early 20th centuries. Within my lifetime, most people had at most a window unit or two; my father's parents never had any air conditioning.

Good point, Dave, but again, people who live in hot climes adapt accordingly. Houses are built differently, habits are different, etc... people who aren't used to temperature fluctuations may lack what others perceive as common sense.

I do agree that having everyone take their vacations at the same time (August) is bad policy in general. Are you all speculating, or was there some investigation or something done that proved this?

It was the explanation that appeared in the popular press as the rest of the civilized world asked wtf?

Thanks Crid, I'll admit I wasn't paying much attention at the time... I was on vacation.

Condolences re: your Granny... They say she was a lovely woman, a beam of sunlight in every life she touched.

I'm late to the ;party, but I had to giggle at this:

"America's military budget is just a bit off-topic here, but some people (and a lot of those people live in a place that starts with an E and ends with UROPE) think that starting ludicrous wars is one way to overspend. I said "starting", and I meant "George Bush & Co." Obama is left mopping up the mess, and a mess it is."

Okay, so Obama isn't responsible for a bill he pushed through, but Bush is responsible for a war it took an entire administration to start? Simply adorable, Marie. Poooooor, Obama.