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

101–110 of 153 posts

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

#101

Post by mahmud »

Semiapies wrote: post #55
mahmud wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tennesse…

Realistically, a legal measure can be considered a popular choice, even democratic, if it was put forth in a ballot, or if the law makers and politicians that proposed it have argued for it in public fora.

What we have here is a crew of GOP politicians who came to power on biblical and national issues; having been financed and propped up by their regional and state offices. The people there, like most everywhere else in the U.S., vote in lock step with their "traditional" parties, for/against issues than don't relate to them on a daily basis.

People will happily vote against their own self-interest because they're under-informed, and held emotionally captive by politicians who invoke moral and religious argument to further their agenda.

Did these people choose to have a dysfunctional fire department? No. They chose less taxes, and smaller government. The GOP, instead of thinking of what's best for the people, decided to stick by their philosophical guns and deprived people of functioning infrastructure.

I will grant you that specific house was outside their taxed jurisdiction. But then comes the next argument: why hasn't the state stepped forward to help its remote citizens? Why hasn't the state of Tennessee dictated a policy of full, state-wide coverage for fire and rescue services for people in remote areas? What's philosophically unacceptable about a state dictating to its cities and towns that they need to support those satellite households? If not, why hasn't the state collected fees from those households to insure them?

Get my drift?

When a gang of politicians has free reign to act out its wildest political fantasies and govern by its most idealized rules, well, shit tends to happen. This is what I meant by "maintaining intellectual consistency". It wouldn't harm ONE TN politician to tax people in remote areas, not ONE. But they chose not to.

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

#102

Post by elbrodeur »

tptacek wrote: post #93
elbrodeur wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>People who sustain life-threatening injuries when uninsured do not pay "at cost". They don't pay at all. The hospital bankrupts them, and then the rest of society pays nominally increased premiums to cover them. I should have said that people are provided services and given a bill. Recouping that cost is, as you point out, difficult or impossible in many cases. >> But none of this has anything to do with what the f…

Does it change your opinion at all that we're talking about a burning double-wide trailer, literally in the middle of nowhere?

I'm having trouble understanding why it should. The main thing that is difficult for me to accept is that the fire department was there, within rock-throwing distance of a fire, and did nothing except make sure the neighbors who were covered were protected.

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

#103

Post by tptacek »

duck wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People should not be allowed to build residences in areas that don't have suitable fire coverage; the fees and taxes required to enlist surrounding communities into protecting them should be mandatory.

I don't want anyone telling me I can't build on land I own just because I can't get fire protection.

Tough, is what I think. Build wherever you want, but expect to pay extra for putting fire departments in the position you're putting them in.

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

#104

Post by Semiapies »

tptacek wrote: post #98
Semiapies wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the point about "in the middle of nowhere", but aside from invoking classist and rural vs. urban prejudices, why should it being a "double-wide trailer" change anyone's opinion?

It wasn't a large home, invested with generations of family sentiment, threatening a tree-lined street of houses. Put more bluntly: the property damage we're talking about here may have been minimal; to the person suggesting that the residents should have been allowed to pay, say, $5000 to get the department to help --- well, that may have been 40-50% of the value of the structure.

Is your point that the residents might not be able to pay the $5000 bills in such a case?

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

#105

Post by Semiapies »

tptacek wrote: post #103
duck wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want anyone telling me I can't build on land I own just because I can't get fire protection.

Tough, is what I think. Build wherever you want, but expect to pay extra for putting fire departments in the position you're putting them in.

That seems fair to me, as opposed to simply banning people from living in the boonies.

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

#106

Post by tptacek »

elbrodeur wrote: post #102
tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it change your opinion at all that we're talking about a burning double-wide trailer, literally in the middle of nowhere?

I'm having trouble understanding why it should. The main thing that is difficult for me to accept is that the fire department was there, within rock-throwing distance of a fire, and did nothing except make sure the neighbors who were covered were protected.

Because by omitting the specifics, you're coloring your interpretation of the event. There were no injuries. Nobody's life was threatened. The structure itself was likely of marginal financial value --- it was a mobile home on unincorporated land. There's "fire", and then there's "fire".

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

#107

Post by tptacek »

Semiapies wrote: post #104
tptacek wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a large home, invested with generations of family sentiment, threatening a tree-lined street of houses. Put more bluntly: the property damage we're talking about here may have been minimal; to the person suggesting that the residents should have been allowed to pay, say, $5000 to get the department to help --- well, that may have been 40-50% of the value of the structure.

Is your point that the residents might not be able to pay the $5000 bills in such a case?

My point is that absent some actual meaningful obligation, perhaps the fire department didn't have a particularly strong moral reason to engage with this fire. Even in the city, the department might let, say, a garage burn to the ground.

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

#108

Post by tptacek »

Semiapies wrote: post #94
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I want what Democrats want: a strong public school system with centralized governance, national single-payer health care, legal protection for labor unions (I'm a fan of the 8-hour work day), a progressive tax system to pay for it, and the maximum possible business-friendliness obtainable given those constraints.

And if you thought the majority of Republicans didn't want the same thing on all those points, within some wiggle-room on definitions and chauvinism over which party's policies to do roughly the same thing are better...well, you'd be surprised talking to them, then. Likewise, you and most other Democrats would probably go, "Hell, we want that, too!" if a Republican listed off eir concerns about national security, cou…

I'd be surprised to hear that Patrick McKenzie believes in a strong public school system with centralized control, protection for labor unions, or single-payer health care.

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

#110

Post by Semiapies »

mahmud wrote: post #101
Semiapies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tennesse…

Realistically, a legal measure can be considered a popular choice, even democratic, if it was put forth in a ballot, or if the law makers and politicians that proposed it have argued for it in public fora. What we have here is a crew of GOP politicians who came to power on biblical and national issues; having been financed and propped up by their regional and state offices. The people there, like most everywhere else…

Did these people choose to have a dysfunctional fire department?

Yes. The people of that county have allowed multiple attempts to set up county-wide firefighting services to fail. They've preferred fee-based out-of-area services from a city that has never had any authority to tax them.

There's no "smaller government" aspect here, there's no conspiratorial back-room change by the GOP. There's just bizarre, partisan axe-grinding by people seizing on a lurid story.

Post reply on HN