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

231–240 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#231

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#232

Post by rqtwteye »

pdonis wrote: post #202
mabbo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#233

Post by WarChortle »

Aunche wrote: post #210
that_guy_iain wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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 of course not. If you go into the ER they legally have to stabilize you. But that's it. If I have cancer and and really sick, If they take to me to the ER, they will stabilize me but they want start treating the cancer. Even if its still early, they will watch you die over time as the cancer advances and makes you worse.

To be fair, I am certain the doctors and nurses want to treat you. But the hospital won't/can't allow it for bullshit reasons.

> 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.

I can't believe your defending poor people having to use worse insulin. How is that okay for you? We are talking about peoples lives, can the richest country on earth aim a little higher then throwing decades old medical knowledge at poor people to shut them up?

> I'm supportive of universal healthcare,

No you aren't, after that claim about supporting it, you spend the rest of your post shooting down universal healthcare.

> 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.

The UK has its issue, but from what I can see its because they are purposely starving it of money so they can ultimately privatize it.

America's health care is fucking garbage. There is no defending it, I'm so tired of spending my time calling several different companies to figure out why I am getting billed for something I shouldn't be. I'm not exaggerating either, literally one or twice a month I get the joy of calling my insurance and whatever doctor sent the bill and try and solve why my insurance won't cover it.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#234

Post by that_guy_iain »

jakear wrote: post #214
that_guy_iain wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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."

So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. What an entirely reasonable response to getting a service request from someone who has not established a SLA with your company. Do you personally work at a company? If so, I demand you to help me fix a problem I'm having. I haven't paid you, but that shouldn't matter. What's that? You won't help me? But you helped my competi…

> So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up.

The article doesn't say that does it. They say the fire department was contacted and responded that they weren't on the list. They refused to accept any payment. And only turned up when someone who was on the list called.

We have a phrase for people like you, jog on.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#235

Post by Animatronio »

RC_ITR wrote: post #171
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…

[flagged]

"America is HUUUGE" comes up everytime someone says anything at all. Too many guns? America is huge. Urban sprawl? America is huge. No trains? America is huge. The US is #4 in terms of total area, behind russia, canada and china, and closely followed by brazil and australia. If the others manage at least some of this stuff, one would imagine that the US can do it at least as well.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#236

Post by cragfar »

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.

Why is it not acceptable for someone to lose everything when three different entities (probably more) say "hey you should do this".

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#237

Post by that_guy_iain »

interroboink wrote: post #221
that_guy_iain wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pointles…

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#238

Post by yamtaddle »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #184
cheriot wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a thing in the US. Hospitals will stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay This is the bare minimum to avoid a PR disaster. When someone is dying slowing of a chronic condition (diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease) the US system will just watch them die unless they have insurance.

It's not done for "PR". US hospitals are required to treat emergency cases, by law. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act[0], passed under President Reagan, codifies the mandate. (This is, to my mind, what caused the United States to end up with socialized medicine-- albeit a socialized medicine system where we don't get to have public discourse about how it works.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em…

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.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#239

Post by autoexec »

pdonis wrote: post #202
mabbo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#240

Post by tlavoie »

yardie wrote: post #7
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

This story still makes the rounds, and the result is still the same. The family chose to live in unincorporated land. They turned down fire protection when the county offered it to them. They turned down fire protection when their insurer offered it to them. The fire department did what was required to save lives. Insurance can take care of the rest...oh, that's right.

Not quite the same thing, but there are certainly places where people will choose to live, without conventional fire department coverage. I live on an island on Canada's coast, where there is a fire department, funded as a local improvement area. It covers ~ 90% of the population, on a much smaller proportion of the island's area.

People do live in some of these less-accessible part of the island, but it's outside of the department's service area. Fires in other areas are officially the responsibility of the regional fire service, like for forest fires. Our department might go on certain calls, especially life safety, but will typically keep some people and vehicles back in our own service area in case calls come in there as well.

I think the term for people outside of the district is "self-insured", because nobody else will be able to assist quickly.

Post reply on HN