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

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#121

Post by rhacker » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

monkmartinez wrote: post #49

yardie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will save your life. They won't treat your trick knee, erectile dysfunction, or failing vision. And they eventually put it out to prevent it spreading. Just not with the same fervor of preventing property damage.

Funny, we get called for much less than a hurt knee and failing vision via 911 every day. I don't have a choice other to send them to the ER if that is what they want. I recently went to a call where the young man thought he took too much "extenze"... Long story short, we checked vitals and asked if he wanted to be seen at ER for further evaluation. "Nah man, I got work to do now... just thought I was gonna die for a…

My wife called for me because I accidentally drank my mouthwash. I couldn't speak and technically couldn't breath for a minute. And I would have been fine, but the bottle said to call poison control (or something - this was 10 years back) if ingested. So my wife called while I was wheezing. By the time the ambulance arrived I was totally fine... sorry about that too

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#122

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

mook wrote: post #98

aaronax wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total cost of running the department for a year, divided by the number of callouts. Possibly weight the callout types depending on approximate resources consumed. Though I am fully in support of just letting the house burn.

These costs still exist in a hypothetical year with zero fires, though. Additionally, people whose house were just on fire with zero insurance are probably not in a good financial position (anymore), and they are unlikely to be able to pay…

Your first problem is trivial cuz you can look at a multi-year average.

The second part is more significant in people simply don't have the money to pay.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#123

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #19

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.

They will save your life. They won't treat your trick knee, erectile dysfunction, or failing vision. And they eventually put it out to prevent it spreading. Just not with the same fervor of preventing property damage.

They will evaluate you and give you a ride home if you are indigent. There are places where it's not uncommon to call 911 for a runny nose or whatever, request ER care, and get the medicab home.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#124

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:46 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #118

mook wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These costs still exist in a hypothetical year with zero fires, though. Additionally, people whose house were just on fire with zero insurance are probably not in a good financial position (anymore), and they are unlikely to be able to pay…

If you don't have the money, then a lien is placed on the property and it will be sold to pay the debt. Or you can take out a mortgage to buy it. In any case you'll be richer than if the house is burned down.

Ability to pay still not guaranteed, depending on the financial situation. Family can easily have more that's than assets to their name, preventing collection.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#125

Post by jahewson » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

FinnKuhn wrote: post #93

ghufran_syed wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess they have a house wich could account for some of that credit risk?

Not once it's on fire.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#126

Post by fatbird » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:47 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…

The FD had tried retroactively charging for fire services, but then spent more on collections than they'd collect. People living in the unincorporated part of the county were usually trying to pay as little as possible for anything. Three times they voted down taxes to fund fire services generally.

Not to mention the question of duress when the FD shows up and says "sign this and we'll put out the fire."

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#127

Post by turtledragonfly » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

SamBorick wrote: post #108

hristov wrote: post #89

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 comp…

The article specifically says: Originally writing in 1692-3, Daniel Defoe noted that the firemen were “very active and diligent” in helping to put out fires, “whether in houses insured or not insured”.[33] Insurance companies’ instructions to their firemen were clear – they were to attend and help extinguish “all” fires. [34], [35] What specific issue with this do you have? Do you disagree with the content of “Of Ass…

I can't speak for the person you replied to, but I don't think the quote you provided really invalidates the point.

Maybe you two are talking past each other. One way to phrase the core question is: "did fire companies let competitors' buildings burn, regularly, as standard practice?" And I think the evidence in the article pretty strongly indicates "No." I think that's what you're referring to.

Another way to phrase the core question is: "Did it ever happen, at various points in history, that fire companies let competitors' buildings burn?" And I think the article indicates that it very well may have. And the possibility was absolutely used as a threat, even if it never actually came to pass.

I feel like even a handful of such incidents would have been so terrible as to get etched into social memory and passed on, and I think that's the sort of thing the person you are replying to was referring to.

So... I think you're both right (:

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#128

Post by lolinder » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

FinnKuhn wrote: post #93

ghufran_syed wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess they have a house wich could account for some of that credit risk?

A house that now requires tens of thousands of dollars of repairs.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#129

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #86

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 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.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#130

Post by photochemsyn » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

Clearly, the fundamental argument here is about private provision of services vs. public provision of services. Is the optimal fire protection service one based on private subscriber payment to firefighters or a publicly (taxpayer or other government revenue-funded) operated fire department?

The best IMO way to view this is to first clarify whether or not that service falls into the 'natural monopoly' category, at least when it comes to basic provision of services. That category is defined by having a lack of meaningful or feasible competition, i.e. would multiple competing services result in a better outcome than a single state-run service would?

My view is that provision of fire and police services, health care and education services, water, electricity and fiber optic connectivity service, as well as the maintenance of roads, etc. generally fall into the natural monopoly sector, with caveats:

1) People should be able to augment basic services however they wish, to they extent they can afford. One can purchase a fire engine and a water tank and keep it on one's property, for example. Private security guards can be hired to augment police protection. One can hire a home nurse and expensive medical equipment, etc. Private tutors can be hired to augment a child's education.

2) State-run services should have competitive processes built in - i.e. we may have a public fire department, but the manufacture and sale of fire-fighting equipment is a competitive business and should not be monopolized, etc. Corruption in the form of fire officials giving preferential contracts to sub-par manufacturers in exchange for bribes should be a serious criminal activity, etc.