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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#81

Post by ghufran_syed » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

alex028502 wrote: post #56

alex028502 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There must be a price that the fire department could theoretically charge if they were gonna always charge on the spot, and still make a profit, as long as there is some minimum number of fires. Also it says that this TN guy had insurance. I wonder if it would have been worth his insurance company's while to make sure that $75 was always paid, either by paying it themselves, or making him pay it, or paying it and sen…

How would you deal with the credit risk? or are you assuming that the homeowner has arbitrary amounts of cash, at hand, but somehow not in the burning house?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#82

Post by chordalkeyboard » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #59

jefftk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do you calculate the "full cost" of having staff on call 24/7, well maintained equipment that's regularly inspected, building inspectors to verify that fire code is being met to keep usage down to sustainable levels, and so on? The full cost isn't $10k in salary and gasoline and foam, it's millions.

amortize that cost over the population that is covered; perhaps discount the services utilized by residents who pre-pay and charge a premium for those who pay on the spot.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#83

Post by constantcrying » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

leetrout wrote: post #47

constantcrying wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am absolutely not defending whatever happened in that article. Truly a bizarre situation.

Where I live firefighters certain actions will require a fee (obviously not paid to the firefighters), like pumping out a cellar or felling a tree on private land which is not threatening any property, but actually not fighting a fire when it would be easily possible would be unthinkable.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#84

Post by elliottkember » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:24 PM UTC

flandish wrote: post #65

monkmartinez wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Adding a second reply with same sentiment. I am also a firefighter, and my main “assignment” over the years has been search/rescue. We’ll always risk to reward. But more and more the phase after life saving is trending toward “surround and drown” - not that I want to fight like detroit in the 2010’s, but yes we do make a call sometimes to stop risking when lives are all confirmed safe.

Thank you (both) for your service to the community.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#85

Post by superpatosainz » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

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.

That's not what universal healthcare means.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#86

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

jtlienwis wrote: post #67

Maritime Law had a provision for salvors that saved ships in distress from sinking. If a salvor saved a ship from sinking, they were entitled to a percentage of the worth of a ship. Maybe terrestrial law needs something similar in the case of uninsured building on fire.

I actually think this makes the most sense.

At least in the US - most areas assess the value of the structure and the value of the land separately.

I'd be in favor of providing a lien on the existing title in the amount of the structure's value (or some relatively high percentage of it, maybe depending on how much is salvaged by the firefighters) if the fire department puts out an uninsured building.

There's no reason to let it burn - it's a waste of resources, big source of pollutants, and a risk to neighboring areas. But I also think you can't reward property owners for taking a gamble that their property won't catch on fire.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#87

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #73

jtlienwis wrote: post #67

Maritime Law had a provision for salvors that saved ships in distress from sinking. If a salvor saved a ship from sinking, they were entitled to a percentage of the worth of a ship. Maybe terrestrial law needs something similar in the case of uninsured building on fire.

We probably have better financial structures in 2022 than that, like insurance (or taxes that fund professional firefighting, like NYC). Besides: it isn't clear we should incentivize untrained professionals to run into burning buildings. Ships are somewhat unique in that the people who are saving you are also sailors, and are presumably at least minimally qualified to help another ship in distress.

There's no reason you can't limit the reward to registered groups (ex: existing fire departments).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#88

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#89

Post by hristov » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

Sorry but I do not believe this. The paper rings a lot of alarm bells. It provides very little evidence for the actual thesis it is trying to prove and provides ample evidence that seem related to the thesis it is trying to prove but in fact it does nothing to prove it. Thus, the paper provides plenty of evidence that insurance companies helped each other to fight fires at sites insured by their fellow insurance companies, and then subsequently reimbursed each other for these efforts, but that of course has no bearing on what the paper is trying to prove.

Usually commonly held widely believed oral histories emerge for a good reason. So if it was commonly believed that insurance companies let un-insured buildings burn, then it is likely to be true at least part of the time.

Also, lets look at the source -- he is an "archive and heritage consultant", i.e. someone that solicits money for his research. Is he getting paid for this article? Is he writing this in the hopes that he will advertise his services for insurance companies?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#90

Post by mhalle » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

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 Reagan administration, I believe, imposed the unfunded mandate on emergency rooms to treat patients using EMTALA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an...

This mandate makes sense from a moral point of view, especially for true emergency situations. However, the act didn't take care of the cost of care, which was placed on hospitals and ultimately passed on to other patients and the government. Obamacare attempted to address this issue.

EMTALA also distorted US healthcare be redirecting poorer people to expensive emergency care rather than preventive or primary care, which might well serve many of their needs better. That's also something that Obamacare was designed to fix.