Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Liberal Elitists mocking people from the rural heartland

Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

09 Oct 2010, 2:58 am

marshall wrote:
Also, if the $75 fee was lumped in with all the other taxes it would be much harder to "forget" to pay it. However, it seems like this guy pretty much admitted that he chose to avoid the payment. Initially he said he "forgot" but then he changed his mind and admitted that he was purposely avoiding it.

Yes, fire-protection services should be financed through local property taxes. The firefighters should have just charged the guy the cost of putting out the fire (not the $75 insurance) and put out the fire. It would be the decent thing to do without setting any precedent of freeloading.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Oct 2010, 3:31 am

Jacoby wrote:

Was it the fire department's spitefulness or the other home owners negligence? Honestly, the home owner who didn't pay and actually started the fire deserves what he gets as a testament to his stupidity. If the insurance company doesn't cover his house I wouldn't be surprised.


For one, there's probably no way to know for certain whether or not the homeowner was intentionally gaming the system or had just forgotten the due or thought someone else in his family had taken care of it. While it may seem foolish, does anyone you know honestly enter their car everyday thinking "man oh man, I better make sure my insurance hasn't expired yet as there's a chance I'll get in an accident". In hindsight, we can all say people should have had more foresight.

Second, you seem to be forgetting that THE OTHER GUY - WHO DID PAY THE FEE had his property damaged because the fire department refused to contain the fire before it could spread. Quite frankly, I don't think spitefulness or some longing to get people ruined for "their stupidity" justifies policies which very well could put other lives in danger. Fire's aren't predictable and letting the homeowner's fire burn could have been disasterous. If the entire county was ablaze now, would you be lauding the "tough love" of the Fire Department?

Thirdly, if there were children in the homeowner's house, would you be lauding the "tough love" of the fire department?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Oct 2010, 3:34 am

NeantHumain wrote:
marshall wrote:
Also, if the $75 fee was lumped in with all the other taxes it would be much harder to "forget" to pay it. However, it seems like this guy pretty much admitted that he chose to avoid the payment. Initially he said he "forgot" but then he changed his mind and admitted that he was purposely avoiding it.

Yes, fire-protection services should be financed through local property taxes. The firefighters should have just charged the guy the cost of putting out the fire (not the $75 insurance) and put out the fire. It would be the decent thing to do without setting any precedent of freeloading.


Especially since Gene Cranick offered to pay ANYTHING.

What would be most rational (if the fee system were to be kept) would be for legislation ensuring that if you demand the firefighters put out the fire and didn't pay in advance, you get billed $11,000. It disincentivizes freeloading, finances the Fire Department, and ensures that the County isn't in danger due to fires burning because nobody paid the $75 in advance.



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 Oct 2010, 3:36 am

zer0netgain wrote:
The FD was 100% correct to NOT put out the fire. Idiot knew he had to pay every year to be covered by city services being offered. That he want's public sympathy to see the town/FD as the bad guy because he CHOSE to not pay the fee is the typical ignorance of people who expect something for nothing.


He did not choose. He forgot. He made a mistake. He has admitted as such on national television.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Oct 2010, 3:40 am

Chevand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
The FD was 100% correct to NOT put out the fire. Idiot knew he had to pay every year to be covered by city services being offered. That he want's public sympathy to see the town/FD as the bad guy because he CHOSE to not pay the fee is the typical ignorance of people who expect something for nothing.


He did not choose. He forgot. He made a mistake. He has admitted as such on national television.


To be fair, there's a chance that's a face-saving story rather than the truth. Of course, there is pretty much no way whatsoever of verifying which is true (unless one has a tape of the Fire Department asking Cranick for money, which would prove that his story is false). There's no way to prove that he forgot the bill, although that doesn't mean he didn't.

Zer0netgain's "business sense" argument is daft regardless of this fine point, though. If you let one property go ablaze there is always a chance that it can grow to an uncontainable size. When that happens, looking back and using the hindsight one can say "gee, it would've been a lot cheaper just to put out the guy's fire rather than bring in the choppers to reduce the blaze).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Oct 2010, 4:59 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Chevand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
The FD was 100% correct to NOT put out the fire. Idiot knew he had to pay every year to be covered by city services being offered. That he want's public sympathy to see the town/FD as the bad guy because he CHOSE to not pay the fee is the typical ignorance of people who expect something for nothing.


He did not choose. He forgot. He made a mistake. He has admitted as such on national television.


To be fair, there's a chance that's a face-saving story rather than the truth. Of course, there is pretty much no way whatsoever of verifying which is true (unless one has a tape of the Fire Department asking Cranick for money, which would prove that his story is false). There's no way to prove that he forgot the bill, although that doesn't mean he didn't.

Zer0netgain's "business sense" argument is daft regardless of this fine point, though. If you let one property go ablaze there is always a chance that it can grow to an uncontainable size. When that happens, looking back and using the hindsight one can say "gee, it would've been a lot cheaper just to put out the guy's fire rather than bring in the choppers to reduce the blaze).


There should have been a procedure whereby the man could have requested the fire department to deal with his house fire that would have made him liable for the cost of putting out that blaze. This way the person could have saved his house and be prevented from being a "free rider" on the system.

In principle, if he did not pay the premium (that is what the $75 fee was, in essence) he should not be eligible to receive a payout from the insurer. He should have been given the chance to pay for the fire department service out of pocket.

ruveyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Oct 2010, 2:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:

There should have been a procedure whereby the man could have requested the fire department to deal with his house fire that would have made him liable for the cost of putting out that blaze. This way the person could have saved his house and be prevented from being a "free rider" on the system.

In principle, if he did not pay the premium (that is what the $75 fee was, in essence) he should not be eligible to receive a payout from the insurer. He should have been given the chance to pay for the fire department service out of pocket.

ruveyn


If Todd Cranick is to be believed, Gene Cranick had a cheque book open and was willing to shell out $9,000 to the fire department.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Last edited by Master_Pedant on 09 Oct 2010, 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Oct 2010, 4:07 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

If Todd Cranick is to be believed, Gene Cranick ahd a cheque book open and was willing to shell out $9,000 to the fire department.


If that is the case, then the law in that county is not well crafted. It should allow for an emergency pay procedure.

ruveyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Oct 2010, 6:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:

If that is the case, then the law in that county is not well crafted. It should allow for an emergency pay procedure.

ruveyn


It's also a pretty bad policy for those who paid the fee, as if the Cranick fire had been put out while it was small the neighbor's field wouldn't have sustained damage.

The Knox County department agrees with you:

Quote:
But Knox County's non-subscription charge leaves the others in ashes.

If no subscription is paid, he said, the standard rate is $1,200 per hour for each unit dispatched to the scene.

"And we never send a single engine to a fire," he said. "We send four engines and a ladder truck," meaning the homeowner is charged the hourly fee for each truck.

Knowing that, he said, most people realize it is "more reasonable" to pay the subscription fee.


http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/oct/0 ... home-burn/


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Oct 2010, 7:33 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
marshall wrote:
Also, if the $75 fee was lumped in with all the other taxes it would be much harder to "forget" to pay it. However, it seems like this guy pretty much admitted that he chose to avoid the payment. Initially he said he "forgot" but then he changed his mind and admitted that he was purposely avoiding it.

Yes, fire-protection services should be financed through local property taxes. The firefighters should have just charged the guy the cost of putting out the fire (not the $75 insurance) and put out the fire. It would be the decent thing to do without setting any precedent of freeloading.


Especially since Gene Cranick offered to pay ANYTHING.

What would be most rational (if the fee system were to be kept) would be for legislation ensuring that if you demand the firefighters put out the fire and didn't pay in advance, you get billed $11,000. It disincentivizes freeloading, finances the Fire Department, and ensures that the County isn't in danger due to fires burning because nobody paid the $75 in advance.

Yea. That's a good point. I think the "let her burn" policy is pretty cruel. You can't allow people to get a free-ride, but even a $20,000 fee would be more fair than just letting it burn.

Glen Beck is an a**hole too. I think I'd pay $11,000 for a chance to punch him in his stupid glasses and not go to jail.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Oct 2010, 12:43 am

I just want to go on the record as stating that some of the posters on this thread are utterly despicable human beings, and a discredit to our species. The rank victim-blaming going on here is disgusting, and several of you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Screw the arguments about what would or would not be the optimal business strategy. Let it burn as an example to scare others into paying their protection money, charge exorbitant one-time fees if they don't... either way, I reject that calculating analysis of the situation. If someone's home is burning to the ground, and you're a firefighter with the proper equipment to put the fire out, just grab a hose and act like a human being. Put the fire out first and ask questions later.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 Oct 2010, 12:59 am

Orwell wrote:
I just want to go on the record as stating that some of the posters on this thread are utterly despicable human beings, and a discredit to our species. The rank victim-blaming going on here is disgusting, and several of you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Don't read the thread on homeless people from a couple weeks back.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 1:24 am

Orwell wrote:
I just want to go on the record as stating that some of the posters on this thread are utterly despicable human beings, and a discredit to our species. The rank victim-blaming going on here is disgusting, and several of you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Screw the arguments about what would or would not be the optimal business strategy. Let it burn as an example to scare others into paying their protection money, charge exorbitant one-time fees if they don't... either way, I reject that calculating analysis of the situation. If someone's home is burning to the ground, and you're a firefighter with the proper equipment to put the fire out, just grab a hose and act like a human being. Put the fire out first and ask questions later.


What is your opinion of a person who does not insure himself against a casualty loss but then expects the rest of the community to make good his loss when the casualty occurs? Do you think "free riding" is a good thing? I think the flaw in the letting the house burn case was that no rational provision was made to permit the person to pay the full cost of having his house serviced by the fire department. Making people pay for what they get is not victim baiting. Rather it is straight forward good sense and basic morality. Free riding is parasitism.

ruveyn



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Oct 2010, 4:19 am

ruveyn wrote:
What is your opinion of a person who does not insure himself against a casualty loss but then expects the rest of the community to make good his loss when the casualty occurs? Do you think "free riding" is a good thing?


I agree with Orwell. The man's house was burning down, and could quite easily have been saved. Screw the notion of "free riding"-- bottom line is, protection from fire is one of those essential public services provided by the government, that ought not be denied to anyone. Was the man at fault for not paying the fee? Yes. But privatizing the system in the first place, and then denying access to essential protective services over a matter of money, is atrocious. Why do we have a government in the first place, if not to serve and protect the people? I'm not advocating "freeloading". I know public services aren't free-- but that's why we've always had taxes. At the very least, police, fire, and military protection should be mandatorily provided services, paid for by non-optional taxes (so that people won't "forget" or refuse), and provided to the people without fail (and I personally believe in the same sort of thing in regards to healthcare, but I know that's wishful thinking on my part). Not everything is intended to be run like a freaking business. What kind of society are we, when we value the most efficient business model over people's lives?

Besides which-- maybe I'm totally off-base here, but it seems to me the whole concept of a local fire department funded on a subscriptional basis would violate some sort of law against monopolies. There's no one else who can really provide the same service...



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

10 Oct 2010, 5:00 am

Chevand wrote:
Why do we have a government in the first place, if not to serve and protect the people? I'm not advocating "freeloading". I know public services aren't free-- but that's why we've always had taxes. At the very least, police, fire, and military protection should be mandatorily provided services, paid for by non-optional taxes (so that people won't "forget" or refuse), and provided to the people without fail (and I personally believe in the same sort of thing in regards to healthcare, but I know that's wishful thinking on my part). Not everything is intended to be run like a freaking business. What kind of society are we, when we value the most efficient business model over people's lives?


+1

I need say nothing more.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 11:28 am

Chevand wrote:

I agree with Orwell. The man's house was burning down, and could quite easily have been saved. Screw the notion of "free riding"-- bottom line is, protection from fire is one of those essential public services provided by the government, that ought not be denied to anyone. Was the man at fault for not paying the fee? Yes. But privatizing the system in the first place, and then denying access to essential protective services over a matter of money, is atrocious. Why do we have a government in the first place, if not to serve and protect the people? I'm not advocating "freeloading". I know public services aren't free-- but that's why we've always had taxes. At the very least, police, fire, and military protection should be mandatorily provided services, paid for by non-optional taxes (so that people won't "forget" or refuse), and provided to the people without fail (and I personally believe in the same sort of thing in regards to healthcare, but I know that's wishful thinking on my part). Not everything is intended to be run like a freaking business. What kind of society are we, when we value the most efficient business model over people's lives?

Besides which-- maybe I'm totally off-base here, but it seems to me the whole concept of a local fire department funded on a subscriptional basis would violate some sort of law against monopolies. There's no one else who can really provide the same service...


Fine. Then the FD should have put the fire out and handed him the bill for the -entire cost- of the operation which he should be required to pay or lose his house. But he should not be getting the service for -free- just because he needs it. Pretty soon everyone will expecting free food which will destroy the incentive to do useful work.

ruveyn