Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#11

Post by sircastor » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #5

I didn't realize this was even an assertion that people made at all. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People at the time must have known that fires in cities were extremely dangerous because they could spread over a great area. It's logical that insurers would want to work together to prevent all fires, purely out of self-interest to protect their insured properties, and then sue the pants off negligent and/or u…

> The paper in TFA says as much, but it's weird to me that people would uncritically accept the proposed narrative in the first place.

That's the point though. In spite of the logical and practical evaluation, there was evidence from multiple, trusted sources that said otherwise. And history is full of people doing dumb things and making bad decisions, so why not this one too?

Also, it's self-affirming - "Look at us! We've got problems, but at least we know well enough to fight fires when there is one, despite money problems"

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#12

Post by cuteboy19 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

pifm_guy wrote: post #10

nerdponx wrote: post #5

I didn't realize this was even an assertion that people made at all. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People at the time must have known that fires in cities were extremely dangerous because they could spread over a great area. It's logical that insurers would want to work together to prevent all fires, purely out of self-interest to protect their insured properties, and then sue the pants off negligent and/or u…

But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...? Unless the fire service is paired with insurance covering the cost of a rebuild? But I don't think the original fire services offered that.

It's similar to how hospitals are required to save you if you are dying but at the same time you are still on the hook for any and all costs incurred

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#13

Post by gambiting » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #7

leetrout wrote: post #6

And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#14

Post by wolfram74 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #9

leetrout wrote: post #6

And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346

No solution to the free-rider problem ever makes everyone happy.

Interestingly, the low density of a rural area probably changes the calculus on "let it burn or eat the loss as a prevention measure" as opposed to places where uninsured buildings might be physically touching insured ones.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#15

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #13

yardie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

> fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places

They protected the neighbouring property.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#16

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #13

yardie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

[deleted]

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#17

Post by yamtaddle » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #13

yardie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

> Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever.

ERs in the US are required to provide stabilizing care to patients who come in, even if the patient can't pay, by law. It's a law because otherwise some of them wouldn't.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#18

Post by chadash » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #13

yardie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

But people complain about this too. No one seriously talks about not treating people in the ER with gun wounds, but Obamacare explicitly introduced the mandate that you get insurance or pay a penalty to address this very issue. Everyone is entitled to a basic level of care, but the mandate says that you should have to pay for it.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#19

Post by yardie » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #13

yardie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Hmmmm. I mean, yes, but doctors will still save your life even if you declined to buy any insurance all life long or pay taxes or whatever. I'm not sure I want the same "protect at all costs" attitude extended to buildings, but fire can definitely spread and even if they don't care about your property they might care about other places.

They will save your life. They won't treat your trick knee, erectile dysfunction, or failing vision. And they eventually put it out to prevent it spreading. Just not with the same fervor of preventing property damage.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#20

Post by monkmartinez » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

How times change!!!

We are the defacto fire and medical insurance providers in metropolitan areas that employ/staff fire and EMS departments. Funded by property or sales tax, we have become the primary care providers for thousands of people in our cities.

We also get called for water leaks, hazardous spills, vehicle accidents, construction mishaps, swift water rescues, hiker rescues, venomous snake removal, bee attacks and dangerous hive removal, roof collapses, natural gas leaks, stubbed toes, fentanyl abuse, mental health emergencies, gun fights, knife fights, cooking fires, refrigerant leaks, trench collapse, people and things stuck in very high places, flash floods, electrical problems and much much more...