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

41–50 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#41

Post by yamtaddle »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #37
yamtaddle wrote: post #17

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. 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.

Eh, kinda, but it's not like you can walk into an ER with just any condition and get treated for free. You've got to be having pretty serious problems before they're required to do anything about it, and even then they're not required to fully treat you, just get you stable.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#42

Post by monkmartinez »

LarryMullins wrote: post #30
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.

> 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.

Number one priority on any emergency scene. Life safety... my crew comes first, but I have taken some serious risk to save people. Once the humans and animals are safe, everything else is less concerning. Risk a lot to save a lot. Most "things" can be replaced. My crew takes great pride in saving homeowners animals these days as we now have some tools to help post smoke/heat exposure (Cyanokit and O2).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#43

Post by fakedang »

LarryMullins wrote: post #30
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.

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#44

Post by triceratops »

jefftk wrote: post #39
s0rce wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The property that just burned down?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#45

Post by ddalex »

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?

Hold on there Crassus.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#46

Post by zehaeva »

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.

This actually hasn't always been the case.

In fact Hospitals were not required to treat you until 1986, which was part of the COBRA act.

Prior to that there was a large practice of "Patient Dumping" where a hospital would kick you out if they found out they you couldn't pay for your treatment. Hospitals in the US would literally let you die out side the ER doors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an...

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#47

Post by leetrout »

constantcrying wrote: post #29
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.

Yes and no.

Defensive operations on an active fire ground are standard operating procedures; no argument.

But most departments do not operate the way this department in Tennessee does where they did not run the call when it was received because the caller was not on their participant list.

They would have likely encountered a brush fire or, at most, a room and contents fire from the structures closest exposure based on the story and they would not have let it just freely burn.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#48

Post by nisegami »

fakedang wrote: post #43
LarryMullins wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

By living on unincorporated land, they wouldn't have been subject to the tax that pays for the fire department (which would be county level or city level I'm guessing?)

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#49

Post by monkmartinez »

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.

Funny, we get called for much less than a hurt knee and failing vision via 911 every day. I don't have a choice other to send them to the ER if that is what they want. I recently went to a call where the young man thought he took too much "extenze"... Long story short, we checked vitals and asked if he wanted to be seen at ER for further evaluation. "Nah man, I got work to do now... just thought I was gonna die for a second." Anxiety and Panic... number one call type.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#50

Post by anotherman554 »

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.

"If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot."

Or there would simply be no fire service at all because the rural area isn't profitable to service.

Post reply on HN