Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

theferrett.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 153 posts

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#51

Post by [deleted] »

Semiapies wrote: post #26
mahmud wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about a single non-paying member. It's unfair to the paying houses around him to have a charred building next to theirs. It would depreciate their property values worse than anything. Not to mention the unsightly view, odors and mess. Since they're able to constitute these drastic "watch it burn" policies by fiat, why not have a policy entitling the fire department to your car, luxury items, a portion o…

What "fiat"? Aren't these city governments with city councils, elections, and the other trappings of the democratic process?

[deleted]

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#52

Post by bluesnowmonkey »

elbrodeur wrote: post #42
wccrawford wrote: post #3

"But it had to be done. Because if people knew that the firemen would save them free of charge, then nobody would pay. And if people knew that you could avoid paying the firemen up until the moment that first spark hit your curtain, well, again, nobody would pay." Exactly. Nobody wants someone stranger's house to burn down, but part of the rules of living there was that you'd pay your portion if you wanted protection…

>> Insurance doesn't work if you only pay it -after- you have a problem. It's been said in several other places but this sort of intellectual dishonesty can't be left alone. There are a plethora of examples currently in place in society that work well where if an uninsured person requires assistance they pay AT COST. If they can't afford out of pocket they set up a payment schedule.

That would create an incentive for firefighters to burn down people's houses. I'm not saying they would, but it's best not to create such situations.

It would be harder to determine the right price to charge people. It's not the water that costs anything, it's the equipment. Remember, this organization is not seeking to make a profit, just cover costs. If people pay in advance, you charge (number of houses / cost of maintenance). Very straightforward. If people pay after the fact, you have to charge (number of houses that will burn down / cost of maintenance). But you don't know in advance how many houses will burn down.

Finally, while letting a house burn down is an ugly business, it's also pretty ugly when you have to send out collections. You already know they were too poor or irresponsible to pay the fee upfront, so it's not like they have a nest egg sitting around.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#53

Post by Nogwater »

wccrawford wrote: post #4
mahmud wrote: post #2

Here is a video of Tennessee fire-fighters watching a house burn to the ground because the owner didn't pre-pay the annual fee. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county-firefighters-subs...

They weren't 'watching it burn'. They were protecting the neighboring houses. The ones that -had- paid to support the fire department.

This thinking would only work in places where fire can't jump very far AND a very high percentage of people have paid. Living in Southern California with Santa Ana winds (warm, dry, and often over 50 mph) this would never work. The fire fighters can't just spray down the neighbor's houses because sparks can jump too far. A similar problem would occur if only 50% of people paid. Too many houses would burn for a reasonably sized fire department to protect the homes of the people who had paid.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#54

Post by cullenking »

GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #35
gaius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? You don't need to wait for an accident that may never happen like the house catching fire, armed men will shortly arrive on your doorstep demanding that you do. Just saying that there are two sides to every coin.

What happens if I don't pay my taxes? Lots of annoying letters and then, eventually, maybe a court order plus fines etc. They don't demand money at gunpoint. And they'll still send the firetrucks if my house is on fire. We're a little more civilized than that. One of the reasons for universal fire service is to avoid the harm that comes when people try to do it on their own. You don't want random people - the homeown…

I promise that if you don't pay your taxes and refuse any additional fines, people with guns will knock on your door.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#55

Post by Semiapies »

mahmud wrote: post #41
Semiapies wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "fiat"? Aren't these city governments with city councils, elections, and the other trappings of the democratic process?

The law might have been on paper, but the public reaction there, and that of the media, has been one of shock. I have looked into the subject when it arose a few days ago, and this particular policy was one made without public involvement. The entire leadership, every seat in that town was held by GOP members; they cooked up this policy in an attempt to live up to their own idealized expectation of a tax-less governm…

So, clear this up for me - is this a secret plan made without public involvement, or is this due to public ignorance and disinterest in the subject, despite the people outside the city being offered the fee every year and the guy in question knowing that he hadn't paid the fee?

And what responsibility do the 300 million members of the "American public" have to know the firefighting policies of some county in Tennessee?

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#56

Post by tptacek »

This is coming up because of the Tennessee "firefighters watched it burn over $75" story. But there's backstory to that story.

The fire department in question served a nearby town, and had no responsibility for the area where the fire occurred. As a service to people living outside their area, you could pay $75/year to get "out of area" coverage. The people who lost their house did two things to keep them from being covered: they didn't pay the fee, and they chose to live in an area without a fire department.

There are many thousands of communities in the US that don't have official fire departments; a large subset of them have no fire service whatsoever. It can't be the responsibility of every other community in their vicinity to provide fire service gratis.

I know 'jrockway finds it hard to believe, but I am as liberal as they come. Even I don't think that when you choose to live in East Bumfuzzle, TN that you're automatically entitled to the services of the West Bumfuzzle, TN fire department.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#57

Post by Semiapies »

mahmud wrote: post #19
gaius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the insurance was $75. See the difference? Everyone's small fee upfront is what purchased all the equipment. If you wait 'til after, then you've got nothing when you need it. And a man who won't pay up $75, will he pay thousands once you've already put the fire out ?

It's not just about a single non-paying member. It's unfair to the paying houses around him to have a charred building next to theirs. It would depreciate their property values worse than anything. Not to mention the unsightly view, odors and mess. Since they're able to constitute these drastic "watch it burn" policies by fiat, why not have a policy entitling the fire department to your car, luxury items, a portion o…

This is probably why people within that city's limits pay taxes for the firefighters.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#58

Post by elbrodeur »

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #52
elbrodeur wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Insurance doesn't work if you only pay it -after- you have a problem. It's been said in several other places but this sort of intellectual dishonesty can't be left alone. There are a plethora of examples currently in place in society that work well where if an uninsured person requires assistance they pay AT COST. If they can't afford out of pocket they set up a payment schedule.

That would create an incentive for firefighters to burn down people's houses. I'm not saying they would, but it's best not to create such situations. It would be harder to determine the right price to charge people. It's not the water that costs anything, it's the equipment. Remember, this organization is not seeking to make a profit, just cover costs. If people pay in advance, you charge (number of houses / cost of…

Already, for the uninsured, if you break a leg and need an ambulance ride you get one. It costs an arm (in addition to your wounded leg) but you get it.

Would you say this creates an incentive for EMTs and paramedics to break people's legs?

Again, systems are in place to already collect from people who can't afford lump sum payments. Amortized scheduling occurs in pretty much every industry.

Yes, a certain number of people cannot and perhaps will not pay. But the net benefit to society is manifest when your neighbor's house isn't burnt to the ground.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#59

Post by elbrodeur »

Semiapies wrote: post #49
elbrodeur wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Insurance doesn't work if you only pay it -after- you have a problem. It's been said in several other places but this sort of intellectual dishonesty can't be left alone. There are a plethora of examples currently in place in society that work well where if an uninsured person requires assistance they pay AT COST. If they can't afford out of pocket they set up a payment schedule.

You're ignoring the detail of insurance . I elsewhere point out examples of other government services that allow people to pay the costs if they don't pay the fee/purchase insurance, but the fact remains that insurance works differently by definition.

You're ignoring that in almost every other instance where you could have had insurance, you receive assistance and pay the price.

This is not insurance, this is a protection racket.

EDIT: By protection racket I mean this: I think in this scenario there is little distinction in letting something bad happen when it is well within your ability to stop it and making something bad happen.

"If you don't pay up I'm not going to be able to stop Vito over here from breaking your legs if he tries to break your legs..."

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#60

Post by Semiapies »

Nogwater wrote: post #53
wccrawford wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't 'watching it burn'. They were protecting the neighboring houses. The ones that -had- paid to support the fire department.

This thinking would only work in places where fire can't jump very far AND a very high percentage of people have paid. Living in Southern California with Santa Ana winds (warm, dry, and often over 50 mph) this would never work. The fire fighters can't just spray down the neighbor's houses because sparks can jump too far. A similar problem would occur if only 50% of people paid. Too many houses would burn for a reason…

To be fair, in big chunks of SoCal, it barely helps to aggressively fight every burning house. The pains of building houses on hills in an ecosystem centered around regular forest fires. :/
Post reply on HN