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

351–360 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#351

Post by LadyCailin »

abduhl wrote: post #344
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't have a functioning society if people who opt out of paying for it demand to benefit from it anyway. We clearly can. Why can't you? Over here, we help first, figure out who owes who later. In America, first you gotta figure out who's paying, then you get help.

In the last century you (as in “you over there,” not you) made Iceland default on its loans rather than help them out causing them to suffer both as a country and as a people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_fi... In the last decade you failed to offer help to hundreds of thousands of refugees because nobody could figure out who owed who. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_European_migrant_c…

I think it’s fair to compare only intranational affairs with other intranational affairs, as correct as you may be to point out the shortcomings. But these are apples to orange comparisons.

The public transit point is fair, but my understanding is that that is due to the right wing government, which is also the root problem in America.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#352

Post by lmm »

RC_ITR wrote: post #345
lmm wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your point? A comparable part of the US railway network is what, Chicago to Denver: 10% less distance, 33% slower even over that shorter distance (much the same as the non-high-speed trains in Xianjing), 1/4 as frequent (and that's only if we ignore that Xianjing also has the slower trains) - and significantly less punctual IME (to say nothing of nicer to ride).

My point is that over that distance, any train is impractical? Like sure China has fast trains in a small area, but west of Chengdu, they don’t, so saying “China is a country nearly as large as the US with a robust train network” is a red herring. The US is much more spread out than China or Russia, even if land areas are of similar scale. This supports the original point that it’s hard for large countries to have ro…

> My point is that over that distance, any train is impractical?

It is practical though. Those 21 trains a day to/from Urumqi aren't running empty; I'm sure part of the motivation was national pride (as with most megaprojects anywhere), but those high speed lines were built primarily because they're useful.

> Like sure China has fast trains in a small area, but west of Chengdu, they don’t

And yet, as per your own link and my response, train service west of Chengdu is still significantly better than in the US. The US being big and spread out is just an excuse.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#353

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124
dantheman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can prioritize firefighter debt over other liens.

And it doesn't have to be guaranteed if it works 90% of the time.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#354

Post by cheriot »

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…

It's lawmakers trying to avoid the PR disaster.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#355

Post by LarryMullins »

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).

The child obviously wouldn't be working as a pack mule. But is a 10 year old boy capable of lifting and polishing a 20lb breastplate? Certainly.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#356

Post by refurb »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #226
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I strongly suggest you don't take what you read in the media as an accurate representation of the US. It's sensationalized.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#357

Post by sokoloff »

myself248 wrote: post #328
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…

No. People _seek out_ unincorporated land _because_ they don't want to be beholden to city services or any of the trappings of civilization. It's like Texas as a whole, opted out of power-grid interconnection with the rest of the country, specifically so they could deregulate their industry. And when the consequences of their actions came calling, the rest of civilization stared, agape and aghast. Here's the question…

I think it's obvious there's a price at which point opting out of fire insurance makes sense. For unimproved land, that price might be quite low, perhaps even $0.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#359

Post by LarryMullins »

cafard wrote: post #215
vlovich123 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As far as I know, the draft in the US has always had a minimum age of 18, and one could volunteer at 17, but only with a parent's consent. Most young men grow considerably between 13 and 17.

In the 19th century the US Navy used boy seamen as young as 14. In 1909 the regulations were changed to be 17 with parental permission, 18 without.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_seaman

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#360

Post by LarryMullins »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #206
LarryMullins wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

There is approximately a zero percent chance the 911 operator neglected to ask if anybody was in the burning house. They didn't save the house but they did show up anyway to contain the fire.

The claim of callous disregard for human life you're making about American firefighters is completely unsupported by evidence. The closest example you have is case where nobody was harmed. But we've already established that you don't let facts interfere with your narratives.

Post reply on HN