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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#201

Post by LarryMullins » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #193

LarryMullins wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I think the above comment is also underselling the strength of pre-teen children, or greatly overestimating the weight of arms, armor, and the strength needed to do things with horses. Children have worked on farms around horses ever since horses were domesticated. A sword or breastplate only weighs a few pounds, a knight could easily employ a pre-teen child to polish his armor, oil his sword, wax his boots, make his breakfast, or any number of other chores a knight doesn't want to bother with personally.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#202

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #198

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.

No, you have this backwards. Acting like a grownup means taking responsibility for your own actions and not expecting the government, or any institution, to magically make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. Paying for services like firefighting is fine; but being forced to pay for things because some government bureaucrat decrees it is not.

And acting like a grownup also means letting people take the consequences of their decisions. According to other posters in this thread, the family in question repeatedly refused to pay a fair price for firefighting coverage, and the fire was started by a family member. That means the consequences are on them.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#203

Post by throwawaymaths » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #60

Yizahi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A libertarian scheme would look like what neighboring counties in Tennessee do, which is to charge you an hourly rate per truck if you didn't pay the subscription fee up front. This is a case where clearly no one thought about how to handle the free rider problem beforehand. I believe they've changed the policy since.

No, the competing insurance companies as described in the video is a libertarian scheme. Counties in Tennessee are a state run operation and their refusal to fight fires is a function of jurisdictional borders, which does not exactly match libertarian values.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#204

Post by that_guy_iain » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #199

that_guy_iain wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You are egregiously misinformed about the US.

How so?

Do they have a public healthcare system? Nope. What sort of society doesn't look after it's own?

Do they have police who have a duty to save you? Nope. That alone is just an absolute shit show. What sort of country says the police have no obligation to protect you? Only to show up and solve the crime once it's happened? What sort of society doesn't look after it's own?

I could carry on but it's a bit pointless since those are two massive things. You need to remember, how fucked up the US is, is well documented. It's documented by your own media. And confirmed and defended by people like you.

No kind of society doesn't look after it's own. That's what a society is.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#205

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:50 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.

Sure - but that doesn't cover the cases where we clearly have folks who do not pay, or regions that vote in ways to clearly place no priority on those shared services.

And in your case - the results are actually very similar (What do you think happens when you fail to pay your city/county taxes? A lien on your title happens...)

So again - I'm all for creating shared services and paying for them, but some folks aren't. In those cases I'd still rather not see people's homes burn (for all sorts of reasons) and this is a meaningful incentive to put the home out.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#206

Post by that_guy_iain » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

LarryMullins wrote: post #197

that_guy_iain wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Again, more misinformation!

No, they went out after the neighbour phoned up because of a fire on their property. Anyone who has fully read the article will know that. So stop your nonsense.

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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#207

Post by mytailorisrich » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #172

mytailorisrich wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a difference between a remote place that is difficult to access and a place that is not entitled to use public firefighters' service. IMHO the former has no bearing on the latter. I am not judging the way things work in the US, just commenting that I don't think that population density is relevant here as the issue is one of right. Now, of course, if you live 100 miles from the nearest town it may we…

State and local governments aren't exempt from tort laws, etc. If they commit to service a location 100 miles away, and can't practically do so, or someone gets hurt in trying to make heroic efforts to do so, they can and will get sued. And in such a suit, making that sort of unrealistic commitment can and will be held against them.

I don't think that this is how it works (paying taxes doesn't entitle to a level of service) but I admit I don't know US law.

As a side note, in this very case the issue wasn't remoteness since they could have had access to firefighters for a small annual fee. Rather it was a legal and administrative issue. But I would indeed be curious if voluntarily paying a fee rather then being taxed can have an impact on any enforceable expectation of service.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#208

Post by Larrikin » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #170

nisegami wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

City; counties only have states above them so there isn’t “out of county land” usually.

Some states like Virginia have city and county both at the top local level. Richmond City is completely separate from the extremely rural Richmond county located more than an hour away.

Virginia is also technically a Commonwealth and not a state as well.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#209

Post by tsimionescu » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

david422 wrote: post #188

HWR_14 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had not heard that. Reports I saw at the time said he "forgot". At any rate, in response to the story, the county changed it so paying when your house was already ablaze was a punitive but not impossible option. I believe it was $3,500 when they instituted it. Which, frankly, seems like the proper way to handle the moral hazard.

That's still the same problem though. If nobody pays the town is still going to be out money even if it's possible to collect $3500. And the reason they don't put out the blaze and then just charge if someone doesn't have insurance is because they won't be able to collect. How do you deal with freeloaders in society?

Definitely not by letting them or their belongings burn down.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#210

Post by Aunche » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 8:07 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #178

zdragnar wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They didn't pay, so they die." This isn't a thing in the US. Hospitals will stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay. First responders- police, ambulance, fire fighters- will save any life they are able to. Preventative health care is a different story, and even that is complicated. Unincorporated land holds a very tiny percentage of the population of the US; trying to use this as an analogy for the rest of…

>This isn't a thing in the US. Hospitals will stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay. First responders- police, ambulance, fire fighters- will save any life they are able to. Preventative health care is a different story, and even that is complicated. The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world. People die because they don't get to see a doctor. First responders will save you. However…

> The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world.

They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world.

> Have diabetes and no insurance? That's pretty much a death sentence and they'll watch you die. Need surgery? No insurance? No surgery and death because of complications caused by the lack of surgery.

I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration. If policy decisions are motivated by uninformed memes like this, then if we ever do get universal healthcare, it will be a disaster.

You can buy human insulin for $25 a vial at Walmart. It's not as good, but it's what people used a couple decades ago. Countries with nationalized healthcare often have long backlogs for treatments. The cancer backlog in the UK is over 2 million people and it's continuing to grow [1]. Also, if you are insured, you're typically going to get new and more sophisticated treatments on the US compared to most places with nationalized healthcare.

[1] https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2020/06/01/over-2-million-...