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

Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

tomscott.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#21

Post by vkou »

chadash wrote: post #18
gambiting wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Obamacare penalty for not buying insurance was eliminated by Trump, because reintroducing the free rider problem is a cornerstone of GOP health policy.

Reinstating the penalty is going to cost political goodwill, which is why the Dems aren't doing it.

Regardless of whether the penalty is or is not in place, I wouldn't recommend being poor and sick, regardless of whether you are insured, or are freeloading.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#22

Post by pifm_guy »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #12
pifm_guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It could be... But were the laws that way in 17th century England?

I suspect not, because property ownership in England used to be secret - ie. Even the government may not have known who owned land. And if you don't know who owns it, who must pay the bill?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

Going by the linked article, they did care about neighboring property (whose owner paid the fee in advance), so they controlled the spread.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#24

Post by afterburner »

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

If this is the same story I read a long time ago, one of the reasons the firefighters didn't intervene is because their health insurance wouldn't cover any injuries, due to the house not being part of their unit's responsibilities.

Universal health care might have changed the firefighters' minds. On the other hand, perhaps other liabilities would not have been covered too, so maybe not.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#25

Post by djbebs »

vkou wrote: post #21
chadash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Obamacare penalty for not buying insurance was eliminated by Trump, because reintroducing the free rider problem is a cornerstone of GOP health policy. Reinstating the penalty is going to cost political goodwill, which is why the Dems aren't doing it. Regardless of whether the penalty is or is not in place, I wouldn't recommend being poor and sick, regardless of whether you are insured, or are freeloading.

There is no free rider problem.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#26

Post by dantheman »

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.

If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot. Ask them if they want to pay the full price, what is it $10k, $20k?.

If you don't pay, you'd have the lowest priority. But there is no reason other than bureaucracy that they couldn't have handled it.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#27

Post by [deleted] »

wolfram74 wrote: post #14
yamtaddle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#28

Post by michaelt »

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…

> It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Consider the following:

* The first Fire Brigade, in Rome, was established by someone who would insist on buying your building before extinguishing the fire [1]

* In the present day, you can live in an unincorporated area, decline fire protection offers from the county and from your insurer, and the fire brigade won't come out if you have a fire [2]

* The article provides 11 different sources for the apparently incorrect claim London's insurance fire brigades circa-1700 let uninsured buildings burn.

Personally I find it quite easy to understand why people might believe the incorrect claim.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_t... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#29

Post by constantcrying »

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

> And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn.

The linked article aside, letting buildings burn down is in fact standard procedure for fire fighters. A sufficiently dense fire is extremely hard to stop as long as it can fuel itself and a controlled burn down is often the only reasonable way to end a fire. It's not like anything would be recoverable in any case.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#30

Post by LarryMullins »

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.

> 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

So will firefighters. They'll save your life to the best of their ability, no matter any contracts, payments, taxes, etc.

Saving your house is another matter.

Post reply on HN