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

141–150 of 153 posts

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

#141

Post by anigbrowl »

gaius wrote: post #28
kznewman wrote: post #7

The solution of including the cost of fire fighting in the cost of owning the house itself helps fix what I see as the mistake in thinking that I don't benefit from having my neighbors house fire put out. If volunteer fire fighters are told by the people who they protect that it is ok to watch a house burn (because necessary costs were not covered somehow) then philosophically what is to stop them from not helping wh…

These guys volunteered for a job that might involve getting burnt alive. So I think their value-system likely precludes corruption of that sort.

That'd be nice, but sadly it's not the world we live in. Arson committed by firefighters is a small but expensive problem for the people who run fire departments. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-141.pd...

Doctors are supposed to be moral paragons too, but every so often one is revealed to be abusing their trust in some horrific fashion.

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

#142

Post by hagy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #139
anamax wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, so when his house catches on fire and you can put it out, you hand him a bill for $5000 or whatever the cost of a fire crew for several hours is. That policy means that you can't afford to have a fire crew. The marginal cost associated with putting out fires is a small fraction of the cost of having a fire department. > And if he doesn't pay, you sue him. And you lose because contracts under duress are unenfor…

Well, obviously I can afford it because it's a small marginal cost; waiting for him to cough up the required sum is quite bearable. And you lose because contracts under duress are unenforceable. It's not so simple. Duress is where someone forces another into a bad position, eg by setting the house on fire first. A contract made under necessity (where the house is already on fire) will probably stand, unless it's for…

Duress is where someone forces another into a bad position, eg by setting the house on fire first.

Duress only implies impaired judgment of the contract signer as due to immediate fear; it doesn’t imply the other party created the situation. Any lawyer would easily argue that the fire department charged an irrationally high cost for fire fighting that the home owner wouldn’t have agreed to had they had time to fully weight the cost and benefits of fire fighting services. In the worst case, one only need say they planned to demolish the house in the near future and therefore paying to have the fire extinguished was irrational.

A contract for non-insurance, pay-for-use fire fighting would only be enforceable if signed before the fact.

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

#143

Post by kznewman »

gaius wrote: post #28
kznewman wrote: post #7

The solution of including the cost of fire fighting in the cost of owning the house itself helps fix what I see as the mistake in thinking that I don't benefit from having my neighbors house fire put out. If volunteer fire fighters are told by the people who they protect that it is ok to watch a house burn (because necessary costs were not covered somehow) then philosophically what is to stop them from not helping wh…

These guys volunteered for a job that might involve getting burnt alive. So I think their value-system likely precludes corruption of that sort.

My point was not meant to imply they would accept bribes. They do the job to fight fires so why agree with the idea that we should stop them when some equipment was not yet fully amortized? If they accept bribes or not, the idea you stop volunteers from doing what they want (fight fires) is wrong.

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

#144

Post by gojomo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #56

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…

But nobody is suggesting they should have just put the fire out for free . They should have put the fire out and billed him a sum many times higher than what the insurance premium would have been. The idea of insurance is to cap your liability, not to be a precondition for receiving any assistance.

A truly private fire service might have been able to strike some rapid deal for an amount somewhere between their costs-to-respond and the expected remaining-value-to-be-saved.

But, it was a city fire service, unmotivated by profit, risk-averse, and bound by inflexible bureaucratic rules.

In either case, negotiating a reasonable price balancing all the factors after the fire has started is so much more difficult to do in an equitable manner that I can understand why either municipal or purely-private fire companies might avoid doing so, on principle.

Also, given the rural setting, it's probable there were no water mains/hydrants nearby and some limited-number of tank trucks were covering a large area. Using any would mean less service for prepaid subscribers; for example any gallon deployed to save Cranick's house wouldn't be available to prevent the flames from spreading to the subscribing neighbor's yard.

With such difficult tradeoffs, and sitting at my keyboard thousands of miles away with a mixture of incomplete summary reports and perfect hindsight, I prefer to assume that the local responders were neither idiots nor heartless but did the best within the constraints they knew.

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

#145

Post by protomyth »

anigbrowl wrote: post #140
protomyth wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When buying insurance for providing a service (especially a dangerous one), there are often conditions about the place these services may be performed and under what condition. It is pretty likely that their insurance policy will only cover them on homes that they are paid to protect. It might also be the case that a certain percentage of each yearly payment goes to insurance.

Indeed, but the judgment call about whether a fire can safely be fought would rest with the experts - firefighters. If I own a very poorly maintained property but my $75, they may be obliged to turn up but I can't force the firefighters to enter an obvious firetrap just because I have a receipt for my payment. They'll do the best they can under the circumstances. The payment or non-payment of a premium tells you noth…

Actually, the ultimate judge of the actions would be a court not the firefighters. The insurance company would have a good case that the firefighter was hurt trying to protect a non-client and isn't responsible to pay-out insurance on the firefighter's injuries.

As you say, if lives where at risk (not in this situation) and the charter and insurance policies noted the exception, then the insurance company would be on the hook for injury payments. This case didn't involve a person in danger and would probably give the insurance company a very good case for not paying.

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

#146

Post by sesqu »

Semiapies wrote: post #36
alextgordon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a man who won't pay up $75, will he pay thousands once you've already put the fire out? Even the american healthcare system people lets people pay for treatment if they don't have insurance. After the fact. This is what the courts exist for. Not allowing someone to pay because there's a possibility they might default is completely ridiculous. Should we close all the restaurants now, too?

It's not "not allowing someone to pay". It's "not providing service to someone out of a hurried promise of later payment". What restaurant will kindly let you pay them next Tuesday for a hamburger today? And sadly, no - if you're a homeless person and walk into most hospitals with cancer, you'll get some painkillers if you need them (before being sent on your way), not a walk to the oncology ward.

Any restaurant that takes credit cards.

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

#147

Post by gaius »

anigbrowl wrote: post #141
gaius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These guys volunteered for a job that might involve getting burnt alive. So I think their value-system likely precludes corruption of that sort.

That'd be nice, but sadly it's not the world we live in. Arson committed by firefighters is a small but expensive problem for the people who run fire departments. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-141.pd... Doctors are supposed to be moral paragons too, but every so often one is revealed to be abusing their trust in some horrific fashion.

Were these not part-time volunteer firefighters?

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

#148

Post by Udo »

protomyth wrote: post #25
Udo wrote: post #6

I know I'm probably the only one thinking like this, but I find this whole concept - starting from "voluntary" payment right through to "watching their houses burn so they can learn their lesson" - incredibly perverse and morally bankrupt to the extreme. If your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose. If you're a firefighter equipped to deal with disaster, you do your damn bes…

That is a normal human reaction. Compassion for others in need is generally the default state for people in an civilized society. but... Public services cost money. Even with donated labor, there is equipment, training, storage, certifications, and insurance to pay for. A lot of places hide these cost in mandatory taxes. Some rural places cannot do that, so they take fees paid by local landowners. Unfortunately, some…

Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So my childish instinct says, the moral thing in this case would be to just bill the family a few thousand $. But I guess that approach lacks the appropriate toughness. It's probably a cultural thing.

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

#149

Post by protomyth »

Udo wrote: post #148
protomyth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a normal human reaction. Compassion for others in need is generally the default state for people in an civilized society. but... Public services cost money. Even with donated labor, there is equipment, training, storage, certifications, and insurance to pay for. A lot of places hide these cost in mandatory taxes. Some rural places cannot do that, so they take fees paid by local landowners. Unfortunately, some…

Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So my childish instinct says, the moral thing in this case would be to just bill the family a few thousand $. But I guess that approach lacks the appropriate toughness. It's probably a cultural thing.

No, I don't think you are wrong on the just bill the family. If there were some framework in the law to do it, I would be all for that, but there really isn't. Plus, you have the additional problem of liability for both injury and damage.

It isn't a matter of toughness. I grew up in North Dakota and you help your neighbor. The problem is your neighbor didn't help you to begin with and there is no way that the "Good Samaritan" approach won't land you in more trouble.

I really think a lot of the reporting on the incident is not focused on why the family did not pitch in with their neighbors and pay the fee to insure service. Was it just selfishness or was their a financial reason?

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

#150

Post by anigbrowl »

gaius wrote: post #147
anigbrowl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd be nice, but sadly it's not the world we live in. Arson committed by firefighters is a small but expensive problem for the people who run fire departments. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-141.pd... Doctors are supposed to be moral paragons too, but every so often one is revealed to be abusing their trust in some horrific fashion.

Were these not part-time volunteer firefighters?

Not necessarily, no. See for example p9, which documents two famous cases involving full-time professionals. Good screening practices seem to help a lot, but as you know perfect security is an unattainable goal.
Post reply on HN