Firefighters = Mercenaries only - Pay to spray?

Kotsu said:
Furthermore, the law of the $75 for fire services started in 1990. That's 20 years that they knew about it. On top of that, there was a similar incident in 2008 that they could have learned from. Furthermore, the Mayor even called a meeting over this and they just flat out didn't have the money for this county to pay for their own fire services. Hence, they decided not to increase taxes so that they could afford this! This is all said at the end of the very article Zyn posted.
Click to expand...

CidBahamut said:
So Raes is correct then: this is a failure of government.
Click to expand...

Government can't afford it on current tax levels. Options are to increase taxes or make it optional to pay $75 to a neighboring area. It's cheaper to pay $75 to a neighboring area then to incorporate an entirely new fire department in an area that can't afford it. The government didn't fail. It went to council, it got shot down. Majority of small cities like that hold a community council, and like anywhere else they elect who they want into office. Hence, the government addressed the concern and didn't fail. The people elected for the $75 payment. This gentlemen took the risk and lost. He failed, no one else.
 
CidBahamut said:
Basic safety services are now optional. Got it.
Click to expand...

Every place I have ever lived, Fire Departments where either funded by a fee or by billing those who use the service, sometimes both. From my experneince EMS and Ambulances both bill you for their services. In fact, they are often private companies. I’m not sure how it is done elsewhere, but to me it seems pretty strange that the guy had the exception he could get the service knowing he hadn’t paid for it. I bet he would have been really mad had the fire department put out the fire, and then charged him a few grand for their work.
 
Last edited:
Pascal said:
Every place I have ever lived, Fire Departments where either funded by a fee or by billing those who use the service, sometimes both. From my experneince EMS and Ambulances both bill you for their services. In fact, they are often private companies. I’m not sure how it is done elsewhere, but to me it seems pretty strange that the guy had the exception he could get the service knowing he hadn’t paid for it. I bet he would have been really mad had the fire department put out the fire, and then charged him a few grand for their work.
Click to expand...

Nah, he wouldn't be mad. He just wouldn't pay for it. Then he'd be sued for the money and the guy would say that he didn't authorize them to halt the fire. Then the fire dept would be screwed. Or, he'll admit the authorization and the court will order the guy to pay money to the fire department on a per month basis. I'm going to use $6.25 per month because that's how much the annual fee would have cost :D
 
Last edited:
Kotsu said:
Nah, he wouldn't be mad. He just would pay for it. Then he'd be sued for the money and the guy would say that he didn't authorize them to halt the fire. Then the fire dept would be screwed. Or, he'll admit the authorization and the court will order the guy to pay money to the fire department on a per month basis. I'm going to use $6.25 per month because that's how much the annual fee would have cost :D
Click to expand...

I’m not sure if the Fire Department can do this, but I know, it didn’t matter with EMS. They took me to the hospital; I got stuck with a $750.00 transport bill that my insurance company refused to pay since they said it was a non-emergence. When I didn’t pay the bill after 90 days, my employer got a noticed to garnish my wages until it was paid. It was based on a percentage of my after tax income, and if I recall correctly was around 25%.

There was no going to court or setting up payment arrangements. It was an order of the court directly to my employer. I couldn’t claim I didn’t authorize the fees, since I had to sign paperwork to receive service, I assumed my insurance would pay for it. I even checked with an attorney and was told it was legal and there was nothing I could do about it. Things don’t often work the way people assume they do.
 
Last edited:
Kotsu said:
Furthermore, the law of the $75 for fire services started in 1990. That's 20 years that they knew about it. On top of that, there was a similar incident in 2008 that they could have learned from. Furthermore, the Mayor even called a meeting over this and they just flat out didn't have the money for this county to pay for their own fire services. Hence, they decided not to increase taxes so that they could afford this! This is all said at the end of the very article Zyn posted. And yet still you set fires on your own property when it's a 20 year old issue that you are fully aware of (hence, offering to make the payment after the fact) and you arbitrarily chose when you would pay? Seriously... I just can't comprehend everyone else saying it's anyone's fault but Mr. and Mrs. Gene Cranick. As for the sympathy, we each reserve the right to give it to those who deserve it. In this case, it's simple. You don't pay, you don't have protection. It's not like if I died tomorrow, then I try to set up life insurance. Or I set up an insurance policy to fix a car that's already damaged. Or I buy a maintenance plan for something after it's already broken because the maintenance plan is cheaper. He knew what he should have done and he didn't do it. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever saying it wasn't his fault. I never said the fire wasn't his fault, in fact, I said accidents happen, and clearly this was the case. He didn't deliberately set fire to his house. In an interview with Olbermann he clarifies that he simply forgot to pay the fee and that he does have insurance on his home: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

The issue was never about whose fault it was - the issue was always is it right for firemen to stand there and watch a man's house burn down over $75 when they are right next door and could put it out. And the answer is simply no, it isn't right. There are some things more important than money. Really, I know that's hard for some of you to grasp, but try.
 
Tristam Green said:
I'd like to copy this from another forum I frequent. I think it bears reading, and speaks droves for how callous and shallow some people *really* can be:



He goes on:



American society at its finest, people. Yes, people like that exist here.
Click to expand...

I agreed with everything he said, up until he started spouting off his views on human life.
 
Everyone keeps calling it a house? Wasn't it just a trailer anyway? Sure it's a home, but hardly a house.
 
I don't really get why they call them mobile either? Don't they just pick a field and claim the land like nomad settlers. Then never move until they get picked up by a crane of some sort... Or maybe I'm thinking of gypsy's.
 
Last edited:
Tristam Green said:
Check yourself, sir. I grew up in a mobile home. It is a house, just like any other. Smaller, but it's still a house.
Click to expand...

Until I see it being called a mobile home in the official news stories, or proof that shows me that burned out residence is a mobile home, I will continue to believe it is nothing more than a small single family home.
 
Tristam Green said:
Check yourself, sir. I grew up in a mobile home. It is a house, just like any other. Smaller, but it's still a house.
Click to expand...

I lived in one for 2 years, and no it's not, which is why my mother worked hard and got us out of it into an apartment, then into a house.
 
Lucki said:
Until I see it being called a mobile home in the official news stories, or proof that shows me that burned out residence is a mobile home, I will continue to believe it is nothing more than a small single family home.
Click to expand...


"The firefighters' decision to follow orders and let the doublewide mobile home owned by Gene Cranick burn to the ground Sept. 29 while saving the property of a neighbor who did pay the subscription has prompted debate as the event has gained nationwide media attention. "

From the article/video in my last post above.
 
I'm just saying I'm not going near one unless I've had a tetanus booster. And I hate needles so not likely.
 
Tristam Green said:
I'd like to copy this from another forum I frequent. I think it bears reading, and speaks droves for how callous and shallow some people *really* can be:



He goes on:



American society at its finest, people. Yes, people like that exist here.
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with him (other than the last part about human life, which I partly agree with), I like that guy. He reminds me of myself.
 
Georgebobbilly said:
I lived in one for 2 years, and no it's not, which is why my mother worked hard and got us out of it into an apartment, then into a house.
Click to expand...

I grew up in them, somewhere shit cans on wheels, other you couldn’t tell they were even a trailer beyond the way the rooms where layout. Even then you could mistake them for a modular home.
 
Pascal said:
I grew up in them, somewhere shit cans on wheels, other you couldn’t tell they were even a trailer beyond the way the rooms where layout. Even then you could mistake them for a modular home.
Click to expand...

Yeah there are some incredibly impressive trailerhomes built now. It's mobile, you can relocate them usually if you have a truck with enough balls it can be done easily enough. The preparation is where is hassle lays.

But they are still homes to many. Homes, homes are more valuable than houses when considering sentiment, but obviously not structurally.

We had one for our weekends north. We couldn't afford a cottage, not even a cabin. But a trailerhome bought off someone and reno's can be a perfect spot for crashing after long nights in front of the fire.
 
Since when are homes not houses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top