That's a hard lesson to learn.

[anonymous1234]

System is broken: they should have been fined, or the fee more forcible collected. Probably should have been included in their taxes.

 

Either way, letting their house burn down benefits no one.

Well, one way it can be beneficial is that it sends out a wake-up call to people currently not paying the $75. At the same time, charging the family an incredibly high fee for the emergency because they weren't covered can also be a shock to the uninsured.

[sees_all1]

It's a stupid way to organize the system, but if you knew how your [cabbage]ty system worked and opted to be the [wagon] on your block hoping to pay up front, you're a bad citizen and a bad neighbor. Rubble is your harvest.

 

You might be looking at this the wrong way. The city could have decided not to extend coverage to people outside the limits, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. By asking for a mere $75, they're offering protections that individuals would not have had before - which also means that the fire could have spread to the rest of the neighborhood, and there would have been nothing anyone was able to do about it. The flip side of this is it also might have cause legislative inaction by the people in this county - they can get fire protection on the cheap without having to pay a tax for it.

 

I refrain from saying they deserve to have their double-wide burned down and their four pets killed - nobody deserves that. But they were negligent in paying their fee, so their disaster was cause by their lack of responsibility, no more and no less.

[Skeptical]

Sounds like the mob:

 

"Pay our protection, or one day something bad might happen to your house... I'm just saying, it might."

[Alg]

Sounds like the mob:

 

"Pay our protection, or one day something bad might happen to your house... I'm just saying, it might."

[cabbage], firefighters are into arson now? Fuuu-

[Skeptical]

Just a joke.

 

I have to wonder though: who issued that order? Who said: "let this family's worldly possessions burn. Let every symbol of their life, every piece of paper, every picture, let it all [bleep]ing burn. We need to make an example out of them, since if we help one that didn't pay, all of the other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens will suddenly stop paying."

[Saru Inc]

Just a joke.

 

I have to wonder though: who issued that order? Who said: "let this family's worldly possessions burn. Let every symbol of their life, every piece of paper, every picture, let it all [bleep]ing burn. We need to make an example out of them, since if we help one that didn't pay, all of the other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens will suddenly stop paying."

 

 

Yes. let's debate this point, because this is all that matters.

 

 

They took a chance, they paid.

[Skeptical]

Just a joke.

 

I have to wonder though: who issued that order? Who said: "let this family's worldly possessions burn. Let every symbol of their life, every piece of paper, every picture, let it all [bleep]ing burn. We need to make an example out of them, since if we help one that didn't pay, all of the other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens will suddenly stop paying."

 

 

Yes. let's debate this point, because this is all that matters.

 

 

They took a chance, they paid.

 

For 75 dollars.

 

I'd be interested to see the number of people that don't pay. I'm sure it's tiny. And whoever didn't create a failsafe for this plan... like making it part of their taxes? Making it non-optional? Making them pay the cost of putting the fire out? Better to charge them the 5k or whatnot for scrambling the fire department then to let a family be made homeless.

[Saru Inc]

Just a joke.

 

I have to wonder though: who issued that order? Who said: "let this family's worldly possessions burn. Let every symbol of their life, every piece of paper, every picture, let it all [bleep]ing burn. We need to make an example out of them, since if we help one that didn't pay, all of the other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens will suddenly stop paying."

 

 

Yes. let's debate this point, because this is all that matters.

 

 

They took a chance, they paid.

 

For 75 dollars.

 

I'd be interested to see the number of people that don't pay. I'm sure it's tiny. And whoever didn't create a failsafe for this plan... like making it part of their taxes? Making it non-optional? Making them pay the cost of putting the fire out? Better to charge them the 5k or whatnot for scrambling the fire department then to let a family be made homeless.

 

 

No, it's better for them to learn from your mistakes. Be careful, cooldog, you are stepping in a puddle which might just stain your Oxfords. You are posting your opinion as fact, while chastising others for thinking they deserve it. This is an acceptable view of the world, as long as your don't sledgehammer other close minded thinkers on other threads.

[Alg]

Unless I'm wrong, the reason they had to pay the fee was because they weren't in the town: The fee included them in the area the city's Fire Department covered. It would have been in their taxes if they were a part of that area. And in not paying they weren't included in that area.

 

The fee was an annual thing, I thought. Much like insurance. So it would be like being diagnosed with some illness that was treatable, then complaining when it's too late to pay one monthly fee for full coverage.

[Saru Inc]

Unless I'm wrong, the reason they had to pay the fee was because they weren't in the town: The fee included them in the area the city's Fire Department covered. It would have been in their taxes if they were a part of that area. And in not paying they weren't included in that area.

 

The fee was an annual thing, I thought. Much like insurance. So it would be like being diagnosed with some illness that was treatable, then complaining when it's too late to pay one monthly fee for full coverage.

 

 

Clearly, you are illogical. Why? Because I cannot comprehend what you are saying, and I bend the rules of logic, like I bend the law to fit what I desire. I am right and you are wrong, how do I know? I am separate from the throng. And BESIDES. Science is my favorite subject, as well as reading books written hundreds of years ago about outdated subjects, lands, ideas, and states of mind.

 

 

--------------------

 

 

Ok to be serious:

 

 

You're exactly right, YOU DO pay for the fire department with your city taxes. Well, I say your implying you work. They do not pay taxes.

 

Brb lemme go get a towel.

 

 

---

 

 

sorry i'm back. my brain was leaking out of my skull, had to clean it up. THEY DO NOT PAY TAXES. THAT IS WHY THE FIRE CHARGE IS NOT IN THE TAXES.

 

i am officially raging.

[Giordano]

But it wasn't a tax, it was a fee. By business terms and politic terms, they are two completely different things. As others of said, why couldn't they increase their property tax to cover the fire fee?

[Alg]

But it wasn't a tax, it was a fee. By business terms and politic terms, they are two completely different things. As others of said, why couldn't they increase their property tax to cover the fire fee?

Hindsight's always 20-20, at any rate. It probably didn't make sense to at the time.

[Zierro]

Am I the only one that's disturbed by the whole incident? Even if it was okay to first deny them service, you still have an awful scenario, where the more than capable firefighters are forced to sit there and watch somebody's home burn, letting their pets die in the fire.

 

And you can't even compare it to a hospital, since the homeowners were offering to pay not only the $75, but the whole costs of putting the fire down. But the offer was refused. Even in the US, the uninsured can still see a doctor and pay on their own, can't they? If you are going to the extreme and see the fire department as a service provider, it's just immoral not to allow them to do their job for a fee.

 

A libertarian dream, almost.

 

At first my opinion was that they shouldn't get the service because they didn't pay for it, but this post changed my mind. When I think of a firefighter, I want to think of a hero - not a businessman. And I had no idea pets were involved. (Hey, here's something PETA might actually be useful for.)

 

But then again, there is still a part of me that thinks the firefighters had a point. Touchy subject. I'll just stand at the sidelines and interject next time semantics are brought up. :smile:

[Saru Inc]

Am I the only one that's disturbed by the whole incident? Even if it was okay to first deny them service, you still have an awful scenario, where the more than capable firefighters are forced to sit there and watch somebody's home burn, letting their pets die in the fire.

 

And you can't even compare it to a hospital, since the homeowners were offering to pay not only the $75, but the whole costs of putting the fire down. But the offer was refused. Even in the US, the uninsured can still see a doctor and pay on their own, can't they? If you are going to the extreme and see the fire department as a service provider, it's just immoral not to allow them to do their job for a fee.

 

A libertarian dream, almost.

 

At first my opinion was that they shouldn't get the service because they didn't pay for it, but this post changed my mind. When I think of a firefighter, I want to think of a hero - not a businessman. And I had no idea pets were involved. (Hey, here's something PETA might actually be useful for.)

 

But then again, there is still a part of me that thinks the firefighters had a point. Touchy subject. I'll just stand at the sidelines and interject next time semantics are brought up. :smile:

 

 

I'm not sure if pets were involved.

 

fun fact

 

Peta headquarters is 20 minutes from my house.

 

 

I'm glad they stood up for what they believed in -- true heroes, they didn't bow down to the pressure of residents. They were just entitled people who couldn't stand they got beat in their own game. Of course the fire fighters would have gotten the pets out if any.

[meol]

Three dogs and a cat died in the fire. And it's not "people who got beat in their own game". They pay taxes, had paid the fee in previous years, and even had fire insurance and offered to pay the full cost of the "service". Not your typical freeloaders. They were just a family that made a mistake that costed them their home.

 

Letting a house burn down to make a point is just cruel. A public mandate or a tax would solve the problem.

[Racheya]

Am I the only one that just doesn't... understand... how firefighters could just go 'lol we're gonna let your house burn down'? Maybe it's because I'm British, but in our country when there's a fire we like to put it out...

 

Yes I know, blah blah blah taxes they didn't pay blah, but I bet you they would have paid afterwards if the firefighters had come and saved it...

 

I just find it disgusting that people could just sit by and watch it without stopping it. At the most basic level, you should deal with an emergency FIRST - worry about insurance and payments later.

[Johannas]

That's pretty harsh!

 

This is a harder lesson to learn though.

 

Not sure if it's fake or not.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or2T2Rancfo

[Saru Inc]

That's pretty harsh!

 

This is a harder lesson to learn though.

 

Not sure if it's fake or not.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or2T2Rancfo

 

 

Holy [cabbage].

 

 

that's all i can say.

 

 

edit: to avoid confusion, I'm aware its a fake, but that crap can happen.

 

 

Still, my opinion stands firm on this issue.

[Skeptical]

Am I the only one that just doesn't... understand... how firefighters could just go 'lol we're gonna let your house burn down'? Maybe it's because I'm British, but in our country when there's a fire we like to put it out...

 

Yes I know, blah blah blah taxes they didn't pay blah, but I bet you they would have paid afterwards if the firefighters had come and saved it...

 

I just find it disgusting that people could just sit by and watch it without stopping it. At the most basic level, you should deal with an emergency FIRST - worry about insurance and payments later.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, when we live in a society that's determined to use bureaucracies to put a dollar value on everything, this is what we end up with: environmental damage, death of entirely blameless pets, negative publicity for the fire department and government, and still no $75 fee payed.

 

Well, sounds like somebody won this one... for the life of me though, I can't figure out who.

[Bows]

That's pretty harsh!

 

This is a harder lesson to learn though.

 

Not sure if it's fake or not.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or2T2Rancfo

I saw that video on Facebook, it was removed entirely after a few hours.

[sees_all1]

death of entirely blameless pets

 

You kidding me? I bet it was entirely the pets' fault that the double-wide caught fire. Those cats are always plotting, scheming.

[Dupin]

death of entirely blameless pets

 

You kidding me? I bet it was entirely the pets' fault that the double-wide caught fire. Those cats are always plotting, scheming.

Well, yeah, animals don't have morals. People who have pets deserve to have their houses burned down for being stupid enough to trust such godless creatures.

 

@Vid: Lmfao.

[anonymous1234]

video

 

That was worth waiting the minute of nothing happening :lol:

[magekillr]

Am I the only one that just doesn't... understand... how firefighters could just go 'lol we're gonna let your house burn down'? Maybe it's because I'm British, but in our country when there's a fire we like to put it out...

 

Yes I know, blah blah blah taxes they didn't pay blah, but I bet you they would have paid afterwards if the firefighters had come and saved it...

 

I just find it disgusting that people could just sit by and watch it without stopping it. At the most basic level, you should deal with an emergency FIRST - worry about insurance and payments later.

 

What you're observing is what 50% of this country considers "Freedom." Welcome to 21st Century America, enjoy your stay.

[dusky]

Alot of people on this forum seem to be comparing the fire department to an insurance company. The fire department is a public service provider, their conerns shouldnt be if someone has paid or not, but to protect the people. Arent these things supposed to be non-profit?