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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#191

Post by bombcar » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #129

horsawlarway wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reaso…

Or, god forbid, protect the general welfare of the population of Yahoo County by having a fire service? The government has the ability to tax for such services. As a partner who own a piece of a rental property in a ex-urban town, the volunteer fire company levies a tax that amounts to $300/year (based on valuation) which covers 2-3 towns with fire, ems and paramedic services.

The problem comes when the only government is the county - it may simply be impractical to have a firefighting crew that can reach anything in a reasonable amount of time. (There are sparse counties in the US that can’t be crossed by a firefighting helicopter in less than 60 minutes).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#192

Post by bombcar » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

frosted-flakes wrote: post #164

bluGill wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be part of taxes at all? I've lived in places with city trash pickup, and places where you choose your own private company to get your trash (in the later some cheap people just drove their trash to the dump every couple months). The costs were about the same in the best case so long as the private people shopped around, and in the worst cases the city didn't shop around and so costs were a lot more.

Because with the information I was given above: - every household gets trash collection service, no matter what - every household must pay a flat fee for trash collection service, no matter what Why charge it as a separate fee?

Probably because you can get them to stop picking up and charging if you show some process of your own. Sewage is sometimes bundled with property tax, sometimes with the water bill - another example.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#193

Post by vlovich123 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

LarryMullins wrote: post #174

PeterisP wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A squire would generally be between the ages of 14 to 21. A pre-teen boy wouldn't be useful for the core duties of a squire because of a lack of strength for the physical labor involved in handling arms, armor and horses.

Prior to the modern era, the Royal Navy and others had boys sometimes 12 or younger on ships as servants, sometimes (those boys with higher ranks) being trained to be officers. The age for this sort of thing was gradually raised with time, but even during WW2 there were still minors serving on combat vessels. 134 boy seamen died when the HMS Royal Oak was sunk in 1939.

Yeah. I’m not sure where this certainty is coming from considering how youngsters couldn’t be part of the crusades considering they’ve historically always been involved in conflict:

> In 1814, for example, Napoleon conscripted many teenagers for his armies.[28] Thousands of children participated on all sides of the First World War and the Second World War.[29][30][31][32] Children continued to be used throughout the 20th and early 21st century on every continent, with concentrations in parts of Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.[33] Only since the turn of the millennium have international efforts begun to limit and reduce the military use of children.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military

I can see how it would be controversial because an argument could be made that children only are useful when you have some kind of artillery that doesn’t require the strength needed for a bow / crossbow. Still, I wouldn’t discount anything, especially on the purely modern subjective view of “it wouldn’t make financial sense”. Lots of human endeavors and actions don’t make financial sense. It’s not the only axis upon which humans behave.

I suspect of the controversy probably arises from the age “child” denotes. Is it a prepubescent human (lets say 10 and under) or a teenager (let’s say 13 and over).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#194

Post by db48x » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

modernerd wrote: post #137

“The Guild of Firefighters had been outlawed by the Patrician the previous year after many complaints. The point was that, if you bought a contract from the Guild, your house would be protected against fire. Unfortunately, the general Ankh-Morpork ethos quickly came to the fore and fire fighters would tend to go to prospective clients’ houses in groups, making loud comments like ‘Very inflammable looking place, this’…

Twoflower the tourist telling people about in-sewer-ants was also pretty funny.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#195

Post by bombcar » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

grogenaut wrote: post #181

bombcar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do the same with AAA - don’t pay to renew until you need a tow and pay the renewal over the phone. I think they’re a bit smarter now and make you pay for the years you skipped.

That's hard as I wouldn't back pay but my insurance company goes back and forth on doing roadside depending on if you have comprehensive and has changed the rule and rates to be more or less competitive with AAA. When it's cheaper I use my I aurance, when not AAA. If they made me back pay I wouldn't use them. But I generally don't just do the sign up and tow immediately.

I think it’s only when you want a tow same day - renewing a failed account has a three day waiting period if you don’t pay the rush fee.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#196

Post by that_guy_iain » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #180

RC_ITR wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> It's level of isolation (both in terms of distance to the next large city and hospitability of the land in between) is similar to Las Vegas. Salt Lake City isn't too far off either. America is huge. Right. The issue isn't so much that "America lets people die because they don't pay." It's that "America gives people the freedom to live in the middle of fucking nowhere, including where a state or local government can…

No post body was provided.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#197

Post by LarryMullins » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #189

LarryMullins wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They didn't pay, so they die." This didn't happen. A building burned but everybody was fine. Had lives been at risk, the firefighters would have intervened. The "moral" you are taking from this story is predicated on gross misinformation.

No, the moral of this story is you taking a single part massively out of context. And the fire department didn't go out. So they wouldn't have known if someone's life was at risk. So stop you're nonsense.

> And the fire department didn't go out.

Again, more misinformation! They did go out, and made sure the fire didn't spread off the property. If anybody had been imperiled, the firefighters would have helped. FFS, it's right in that article:

> 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.

And if the firefighters were rude to these people, it's probably because the people who lived there were a bunch of anti-social shitheads and the firefighters knew it. But the firefighters did go out anyway. Stop your nonsense.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#198

Post by mabbo » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #143

Even with this information included. I think the moral of the story is America has some very serious third-world problems. The reason things like this go on in America and not in any other developed country is that Americans just accept it. "They didn't pay, so they die." Here is how much they accept it, firefighters literally stood and watched a building burn down instead of playing with their toys. Not only that, t…

The solution is that the government steps in and says "No, you must". And American culture does not like when government says "must".

But in the rest of the world, we act like grown ups and accept that sometimes, it's perfectly okay.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#199

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #190

zpthree wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the benefits of society you can't ignore the costs. Every home that is protected by fire departments pays taxes in the developed world, this family chose to live in unincorporated land. Btw - The fire was started by the homeowners grandson who was lighting trash on fire and afterwards the homeowners son assaulted the fire chief.

Quoted post unavailable.

You are egregiously misinformed about the US.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#200

Post by colechristensen » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #102

colechristensen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t the Trump administration but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the mandate as unconstitutional and being liberal and a supporter of health care reform I think they had a point. I can’t see in the constitution where the federal government has the power to force me to buy health insurance. I like my constitutional rights being protected even when the thing being compelled (me having insurance…

The plaintiffs in the case were several gop attorney generals. Related cases were also carried out by the Trump admin. And several courts had previously upheld that the ACA was constitutional because it does not force you to buy health insurance. It actually just imposed a fine if you didn't and that fine was considered a tax, which Congress has constitutional authority to levy. The GOP forum shopped to get in front…

I likewise do not approve of the Feds expanding their powers arbitrarily by declaring the punishment for whatever they wouldn’t otherwise be allowed to enforce “a tax”. Calling the insurance mandate constitutional because the punishment was a “tax” was abusing the intent of the law.