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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#281

Post by thegrimmest » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

linuxdude314 wrote: post #277

thegrimmest wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly where reasonable people disagree. Some (myself included) feel that acting like a grownup means exactly that everything that nature (not other people) inflicts on you is your responsibility . This includes your house catching on fire or your person contracting a disease.

No reasonable person thinks this. If you truly believe this, your perspective have been warped by the culture you are immersed in. It sounds like you don’t find value in living in a society. Try living in a different culture than USA for 6 months to a year and I suspect your eyes will be opened.

I'm not so sure - entire revolutions have been had about this, and extensive documents written, for centuries[1]. Not everyone is a negative utilitarian.

I value living a society where cooperation is (maximally) voluntary. Involuntary cooperation is indistinguishable from a degree of slavery.

1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#282

Post by RC_ITR » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #196

rayiner wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

The linked scenario was controversial because this one small town of 2,500 chose to not help (vs. the standard practice of other towns that do help). Then the national outcry from the rest of America caused them to change it.

Wherever you're from, I'd love to use a town of 2,500's actions to define the morality of your country...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Fulton,_Tennessee#%22Pay...

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#283

Post by vkou » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #268

vkou wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's an unconstitutional act. That is an interesting opinion, but at this point, both a conservative, and then a super-conservative, packed-with-federalist-society SCOTUS has disagreed with you twice on this issue (5-4) and then (7-2). It's about as written-in-stone as you can get in the United States. The courts think this is above-board, the executive thinks this is above-board, most of the public thinks its abov…

Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... lets not use that as justification, shall we? carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states. If you don't pay for X, you get fined Y as a punishment. yep, I'm sure the powers-that-be considering that above-board should be the only justification we need!

> Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so...

It was also perfectly constitutional[0], hence the need for that 13th amendment. And that civil war thing. As it turns out, the constitution kind of sucks[0], it has a lot of problems with it. Fewer than it did in the past, but we aren't quite at the end of history just yet.

You're going to need a better complaint than 'it's unconstitutional', as this is pretty verifiably constitutional. The people who have been empowered[1] by the founding fathers to determine what is, and what is not constitutional have determined that this is constitutional. It's not a matter of opinion at this point.

> carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states.

And that's nothing new. Government can compel all sorts of things from you. Showing up to contribute your labour to a jury duty. Involuntary servitude in the military. Taxing the land you live on. Following emergency orders. Not heading a communist political movement. Every society - even this society - provides you with privileges, and requires obligations from you.

This obligation has been ruled to be well within the legal framework of this society, and if you think it should be outside that legal framework, you should look into passing a constitutional amendment on the subject.

Or, you could believe that this obligation is a constitutional, but bad idea, and have the legislature repeal it. Either way, it's currently constitutional. [0]

[0] You're confusing 'constitutional' with 'just'. They are not the same thing.

[1] Actually, SCOTUS' powers in this sphere are what's unconstitutional[2], but we all close our eyes, and collectively pretend that they are.

[2] You're not going to find anything in either the constitution, or passed legislature granting SCOTUS the incredibly broad powers it currently enjoys. These powers were invented out of thin air, and are backed by neither fiat, nor democratic will. All that the constitution says on the subject is 'We should, like, probably have courts. That should do stuff, maybe.'

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#284

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

rqtwteye wrote: post #232

pdonis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Acting like a grownup means that you realize that not all things that happen to people are their own fault and that you yourself can’t totally avoid bad things no matter how careful you are. It also means to understand that some things can be handled much better by a shared effort instead of everybody on their own. That’s why we have police, firefighters and the military.

Police, firefighters, and military don't have to be provided by governments. There are plenty of historical examples of all three being provided by private institutions (indeed, the article referenced in this discussion talks about such institutions for firefighters in England over a period of several centuries).

Nor does charity for those in genuine need need to be provided by governments. Indeed, charity throughout human history has worked best when it is provided by private institutions made up of people who genuinely want to help others, of which there are plenty in the US as there are everywhere, not by government departments staffed by bureaucrats.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#285

Post by dmitriid » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #36

djbebs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free rider problem.

Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and restrictions on which factors can be used to set pricing for policies—both wildly popular—create a free rider problem.

Funny how it's a problem only in the "richest country in the world".

It also pales in comparison to the burden and costs of existing system in the US.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#286

Post by yamtaddle » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:43 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #271

yamtaddle wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have "socialized medicine". You can go to the ER without insurance and with signs & symptoms of a heart attack and they'll try to keep you from dying, but they won't give you the triple-bypass and medicine you need to keep it from happening again in a month—unless they think you'll be able to pay for it.

Without making any moral argument one way or the other: If people who can't pay and would otherwise die are given "free" treatment then we have socialized medicine. The costs are spread over everyone else. Uninsured and under-insured people are cited as one reason why treatment costs are so high. Whether these cases actually contribute to costs in a substantive way doesn't stop the mandate to provide free emergency c…

This is hair-splitting for no reason, to the point of destroying communication. Nobody (because this is HN: yes, apparently at least one person, but you know what I mean by this) means ERs having to eat the cost of stabilizing uninsured dying/in-labor people when they say "socialized medicine". You can draw some parallels, but trying to put that, plus all the things people actually mean by the term, under the same umbrella, is a step toward making it meaningless.

This is like a burger joint telling you they don't serve onion rings, and then you insisting that in fact they do, because they put circle-cut onions on their burgers, and technically those are both rings and onions. Like... OK? So what? Which framing: "this place serves onion rings", or "this place does NOT serve onion rings", is more likely to confuse a diner?

The only times I've seen people really, seriously try to frame this as "socialized medicine" is when they don't understand how very limited the mandated scope of care is. It doesn't amount to much more than "you can't let someone simply die or give birth on the curb right outside your ER". The vast majority of what counts as medical care isn't part of it.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#287

Post by sethhochberg » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:44 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.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.udel.edu/dist/4/10696/fi...

Voters in the county in question did eventually approve "universal" fire response, either small prepaid fee or post-paid full cost after response, but it sounds as though they won't consider converting the fees into standard taxes until 70% of residents have opted in to protection. Quite a few people who live and vote there seemingly have no interest in fire service.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#288

Post by interroboink » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #237

interroboink wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to apologize for some of the awful things that go on in the United States, but your comment seems to come from the point of view of someone whose understanding of the country is built on popular media and clickbait headlines, rather than first-hand experience, if I may be so bold. Keep in mind that what gets reported on and popularized is what sells clicks/views/etc, and is not very representative of "no…

Quoted post unavailable.

> It comes from reading/listening/etc the responses of Americans to all the crazy shit that happens there.

Right, no disagreement from me that these things happen. And responses are varied, as you say.

What I was trying to get across was that you get a very lopsided view by concentrating on "crazy shit" and people's responses to it.

For example:

I live in the US. It's snowing where I am. It makes things beautiful. Some birds are at the feeder, and the furnace just turned on. I'm thankful for the warmth. I have some cookies to deliver to the neighbors later on (they recently gave us a loaf of their bread, which was delicious).

----

There you go, that was some real American culture (still second-hand for you, and admittedly not entirely representative). Not very interesting, but it's home. Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people, and yes, sprinkle in a handful of crazy shit too for good measure. Maybe that gets you a little bit closer to reality.

Still plenty that needs fixing, of course. And I'm glad I don't live in Mississippi (:

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#289

Post by nnadams » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:48 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’…

A great example of the confusing reality that the words "inflammable" and "flammable" mean the exact same thing.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#290

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #229

pdonis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to declare by fiat what constitutes a society, or what counts as "taking care of its own". Nor do you get to just help yourself to the assumption that other countries, which claim to have things like "a public healthcare system" and "police who have a duty to save you", actually have those things. As for "well documented", if you believe what the media tells you about anything, let alone the US, you are…

>As for "well documented", if you believe what the media tells you about anything, let alone the US, you are in no position to judge anyone else. They show video footage... Jesus christ, you've bought into the Trump propaganda of fake news so much you're just saying believing the media is foolish. This whole the media is lying wasn't such a thing before Trump.

> They show video footage

Video footage can tell you that some small group of people did some particular things at some particular time and place.

Video footage cannot tell you what isn't on the video. Which is the vast majority of what the vast majority of actual Americans do with their time every day. Which does not look at all like your media-inspired, uniformed caricature.

> This whole the media is lying wasn't such a thing before Trump.

Excuse me? The media has always lied. The evidence for that is overwhelming for anyone who actually cares to look.

Decades ago, we had no way of knowing about the extent of lies being told to us by the media (and by our politicians, for that matter) at the time they were told to us, because we had no other sources of information. Now we do. We can spot the lies told to us by all of our so-called "trusted" sources, just as they can spot lies told to us by Trump. There are no genuinely trustworthy sources of information. I agree that sucks, but it's the fact, and trying to ignore it or sugar coat it just makes it worse.