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

31–40 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#31

Post by s0rce »

dantheman wrote: post #26
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.

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.

Do people have that cash lying around, what guarantee would you have that people would pay? Maybe you can take the deed to the house that you saved?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#32

Post by flutas »

yardie wrote: post #19
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.

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.

> And they eventually put it out to prevent it spreading.

Reading the article, that's not true.

They watered down the fence line to protect someone else's land.

> Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

> "They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

So to your examples...

> They will save your life. They won't treat your trick knee, erectile dysfunction, or failing vision.

It would be closer to the story if it was "they won't save you, but they'll spray down everyone else with a disinfectant to protect them from your disease."

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

dantheman wrote: post #26
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.

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.

Article doesn't seem to agree with you here, instead citing different reason:

> South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#34

Post by dantheman »

afterburner wrote: post #24
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.

I think it was a fundamental lapse of judgement and incompetence on the firefighters side. They should have had a plan for uninsured fires nearby, and been able to execute it. What is the marginal cost of putting out a fire for the uninsured, I'm sure its quite low - equipment is paid for, staff is payed for, etc. So they should be able to make a substantial profit by charging $20k for putting it out, or whatever amount they deem necessary.

Just because this was an emergency doesn't mean it wasn't unexpected. We would want firefighters to go the next town over if there was a fire there, so it seems like their insurance policy was improperly under specified.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#35

Post by alex028502 »

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

> South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#36

Post by yamtaddle »

djbebs wrote: post #25
vkou wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and restrictions on which factors can be used to set pricing for policies—both wildly popular—create a free rider problem.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#37

Post by bryanlarsen »

yamtaddle wrote: post #17
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.

> 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.

It's also a Reagan law. So you can say that it was Reagan that introduced universal healthcare to the US.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#38

Post by jefftk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #33
dantheman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Article doesn't seem to agree with you here, instead citing different reason: > South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

dantheman was proposing agreeing to pay the full cost (tens of thousands of dollars), not just the advance fee ($75).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#39

Post by jefftk »

s0rce wrote: post #31
dantheman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do people have that cash lying around, what guarantee would you have that people would pay? Maybe you can take the deed to the house that you saved?

Seems like the agreement could be backed with the threat of a lien on your property.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#40

Post by alex028502 »

alex028502 wrote: post #35
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

> South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

oops - by the time I recovered my password to post this excerpt, lots of other people already had
Post reply on HN