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

251–260 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#251

Post by ejb999 »

WarChortle wrote: post #233
Aunche wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. So... I am sure that is one reason of the highest preventable death rate. doesn't invalidate GP point. > I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration. Sadly in a way its not an exaggeration at all, will doctors and nurses literally watch you die o…

>> But the hospital won't/can't allow it for bullshit reasons.

Bullshit reasons like they don't want to go bankrupt and not be able to serve anyone at all?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#252

Post by dantheman »

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.

Society != Government

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#253

Post by shagmin »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #155
legitster wrote: post #75

This reminds me of when I learned there was no such thing as "The Children's Crusade". As my history professor put it, "going to the Holy Land was an incredibly expensive endeavour reserved for a very few. There's no way anyone was going to waste it on young, inexperienced children". Nearly every source we had saying that the crusade involved children came much later, after a few writers referred to the same source w…

IIRC, the Children’s Crusade never made it to the Holy Land. Instead they ended up a port in Europe where some “friendly” people offered to take them to the Holy Land on their ships for free. Turns out they were slavers and the children were taken to Northern Africa and sold as slaves. This story sounds actually plausible as it may not be that far from where the children started to a port city.

That's basically how I remember learning it.

The Wikipedia article mentions that also, but only after one of the children who apparently had visions from God and said the Mediterranean Sea would part into two and leave a path (sort of like the Red Sea for Moses) for them to march directly to the Holy Land...when that failed they settled on hitching a ride on ships from people who turned out to be slavers.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#254

Post by vxNsr »

rqtwteye wrote: post #227
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…

“Hospitals will stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay.” They will stabilize you and then kick you out to the curb quickly. And depending how they felt that day they will send you an outrageous bill.

This is false, a hospital cannot kick you out, you need to agree that you are ready to leave.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#255

Post by ch4s3 »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #203
ch4s3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m commenting on the parent which was responding to the anecdote about Tennessee, and not the article. The fire fighters in question in rural Tennessee are volunteers and NOT run by the state. That’s why they came up with the subscription services. Some of the counties and towns do contract with fire departments, but not all of them and not the one in question.

I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to say here.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#256

Post by yamtaddle »

colechristensen wrote: post #200
jjeaff wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pointless to try to draw a distinction here, because you can re-frame the exact same behavior several different ways, some of which are already common, so it doesn't represent any expansion of power. Like, raise taxes by that much and give people with insurance a credit for it, but not those without insurance. Done. No "worse" than e.g. child tax credits, as far as constitutionality. Insisting that the law do some particular word-dance to get to the exact same place isn't productive and doesn't defend liberty.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#257

Post by vlovich123 »

greedo wrote: post #222
LarryMullins wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ma…

Swords and breastplate weigh far more than a "few pounds." Breastplate is close to 20lbs, a two-handed sword up to 10lbs. And that's just a small amount of the armor a knight would have (ignoring the fact that most warriors of the era wore chainmail, not plate).

Multiple children could work together to carry the armor. Pack animals would be responsible for carrying over longer distances.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#258

Post by ejb999 »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #183
RC_ITR wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Quoted post unavailable.

>>So is Russia, they don't have these problems.

Really, Russia doesn't have any similar problems? You want to rethink that by any chance? because now you are making yourself sound quite ignorant.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#259

Post by mytailorisrich »

munificent wrote: post #243
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…

> I don't think that population density is relevant here as the issue is one of right. It is absolutely relevant because services can only be logistically and economically viable at certain levels of density. Fire services aren't very useful if it takes them a two-hour drive to reach the fire. So they have a maximum radius where they are useful. They only provide value to the people within that radius. If the density…

Public services are not expected to be 'economically viable' on their own. Moreover, whether there are enough people to support service is also a purely administrative and political issue.

You're not addressing my point, either, which is that there is a big difference between getting a crap service because you're hard to reach (which does happen including here in Europe) and having no right to call for help in the first place.

Again, I am not criticising, I am just thinking that there are different, separate issues here.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#260

Post by WalterBright »

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

One example in a nation of 330,000,000 is not indicative of any sort of systemic problem or of what "we" do.
Post reply on HN