http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

what the hell?! I don't even know what else to say.... :o:v:

... I realize it's insurance, but when the guy offers to pay whatever the fee is as his house is burning down, why in the world would you still refuse? Red tape sucks.

...

What the **** is wrong with those people? I understand that there's a fee and whatnot but that's just being a ****ty human being.

Probably for the exact reason they stated in the article, which was because then no one would pay the fee until their house was burning down.

Because if you could just pay on-the-spot when your house was burning down, no one would want to pay a recurring fee when their house WASN'T burning down? Don't get me wrong, it sucks, but no one's life was in danger, and there are rules for a reason. I don't exactly support that method, but I don't blame them.

Besides, if they live in such a rural area as described, then it's likely they WOULD have lost everything, despite what the article said. It doesn't take long for a fire to totally overtake a house, and firefighters usually will not risk their lives to save pets.

This elicits the same reaction from me as the whole pre-existing condition insurance thing. Why would anyone have insurance if they could just NOT pay a fee until something bad happened and then pay a monthly rate instead of paying the whole huge sum? Stupid.

Tennessee has the largest conglomeration of greedy pricks I have ever had the displeasure of being around. Some of those counties are ruled like mini dictatorships.

Because if an insurance ever drops you for whatever reason (and boy do they try to find them in a hurry if you have an expensive problem), you can't ever get another.

Imagine if your house burnt down once, and now they won't let you pay to cover it because you're already a risk. That's the true comparison you're trying to make there.

Yeah, so fine him 3 times the amount?

Hey, I don't want to derail this into a healthcare insurance debate, but I wasn't saying they were exactly the same situation, just that they elicited the same reaction from me. Dropping customers is a completely different deal, and definitely needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue, really. They are connected, but not the same thing.

I rather not have the potential of my house burning down because my neighbor failed to pay some fee. I don't know what's it like in rural Tennessee, but I don't believe letting a house continue to burn like that in a still populated area is such a fantastic idea.

This is another perfect example of what's wrong w/ this country. It would be even more awesome if he had to pay the police & other emergency responders a fee too.

911: What is your emergency?
Caller: A man busted his way in to our home, raped my wife, shot her in the head & is now currently raping my daughter. Please help. I could be next.
911: One moment. *checks list*
Caller: Hello?!
911: I'm sorry, sir, but it appears that you haven't paid the associated fee so we're unable to help you at this time. Good bye.
Caller: Oh, god, no, I heard another gunshot. I hear footsteps. Nooo!

Then we can all sit around & debate about whether or not someone should have to pay a fee or not (outside of taxes) or if a neighboring (notice the world "neighbor") agency should be required to send aid or not if said fee isn't paid. Awesome-tastic!

When you decided to live in the sticks you knew damn well that there wasn't a fire protection agency that covers your area, and if you didn't, it's your own fault for not inquiring. It just comes with the territory.

That said, they should have responded to the call then billed the family $2,500 or a similar amount. Enough to still make the neighbors want to pay their $75 charge.

If you live in the city, and you have a problem, you call your local PD and they respond. That's one of the advantages of living in the city. You pay for that luxury with your tax money that goes to the city. You choose to live outside the city, that's your choice. Hope the county has a good Sheriff's dept. The people that live in the city do not want to, and should not have to, pay for your services.

The only thing about this thread that's "Wrong with this country" is the moron who expects things to be provided for him that he didn't pay for.

This is what's wrong.

That's really a terrible example because there is nowhere that doesn't have any law enforcement coverage of some kind through a city, county or state agency.

The real issue here is that the county in question is too cheap to either pay for its own county department to cover the unincorporated areas to to properly contract the service out to other agencies. This kind of service shouldn't be part of an optional or separate fee that people pay, but part of the property taxes or any other taxes that go to the county every year.

What I dont get is that they think it is a good idea to leave a fire burning that could cause severe damage to other properties.

I don't know what sort of weather Tennessee has, but there are weather conditions in which even a small fire (as in campfire sized) can become an uncontolable inferno if not taken care of within minutes.

I also don't know the specific neighborhood situation here, but notice that the fire department WAS there preventing the fire from spreading to paying properties. People acting like they are entitled to all this protection and services when they aren't paying for them never ceases to irritate me.

What there needs to be is a rural volunteer fire department, but I guess everyone there is too lazy and entitled to service from other peoples' fire departments.

What there needs to be is a mandatory tax. Firefighting is not something you should be allowed to opt out of. Simple, easy fix. Not Republican friendly though.

I heard that they would've taken his back payments but the cellular credit card swiper thingy wasn't working and the firefighter didn't know how to use the old school manual credit card machine.

well that was an easy fix

That works even better, obviously, but we get along alright in plenty of places out here with rural volunteer departments.

Would a fire department know, with all the countless factors involved in the house's construction, weather conditions, and neighboring environment, that a raging house fire would actually be... safe to allow? What if this took place in a suburban community instead of Who-the-hell-knows, Tennessee?




Or too stupid. I prefer not having incompetent people making matter worse.

Yes, the fire department would know, to some degree, whether a fire would be safe to let burn. They do it all the time. They decide that it is too big a fire to fight, and they let it burn and protect exposures to nearby structures. Not to say this is exactly the same thing, of course, but yes, they let things burn often.

It wouldn't happen because suburban communities are large enough and wealthy enough to have fire departments that they've paid for through their taxes. They wouldn't need to rely on paying other fire departments to work outside of their city limits.

*whispers*

rural Tennessee...

Payment or not, if you have a big ****ing hose and you stand there watching someone's life burn to the ground because you aren't getting paid for tackling it, you deserve to rot in hell.

And if the firefighters get fired for preventing someone's house from burning down as a result, they should probably just work for a place that doesn't suck.

This is true, but especially in today's economy, not a lot of people are willing to throw away a solid job on principle when a superior tells them to do something they don't agree with.

Again, the real failure here is in planning. This dude just basically said "**** being prepared, I will whistle my way through life knowing that someone will take care of all my problems!" and everyone else in the community seems to have managed to be the only place in the modern US without a damn fire department.

I get that, but if you're a firefighter, how do you just WATCH it happen?

By using your EYES.

OH BOOmm

A few people have mentioned a good solution: put the fire out, then charge him for the resources used or fine him or something. Letting the place burn is a ****ed up thing to do.

Yeah, i know. It must have sucked. I'd be willing to bet they were *****ing about their superiors the whole time. I've been there before (obviously not with a fire) where my boss was telling me NOT to do my job for some specific person when I'm standing right there staring at it.

I agree. even if they want to have this terrible system whereby they don't have any fire department and have to pay special fees to have other people fight their fires for them, then at the very least they should have some astronomical fee associated with no-fee-paid extra-jurisdictional fire fighting. Save the guy's house, charge him a couple thousand, and no one will "forget" to pay the fee because it's a way cheaper alternative.

So? You should be relieved.

It's a little different when you like your job and believe it is a necessary public service and that it is a moral concern.

I think that all citizens regardless of where they reside should be entitled to an emergency response from their city/town, county, state or country. The idea that people in rural areas should have to pay a fee (outside of taxes [for the 2nd time]) for such a service is an embarrassment to that city/town, county, state & country.

I would also like to add that there are a lot of people out there that don't "choose" to live where they live (at least not a "choice" in the sense of a realistic one).


That's exactly why I went w/ it. I think that the average person would think it absurd if the other forms of emergency responders weren't obligated to respond in an emergency & if the associated fees weren't covered via taxes [for the 3rd time]. A fee in these situations is retarded. The reason that you cover important entitlement programs w/ taxes [for the 4th time] is because a ****-load of people wouldn't pay them otherwise.

I find it odd that half the people that responded to my statement overlooked the part where I mentioned "outside of taxes" [for the 5th time]. My entire response was based upon the assumption that everyone (not just MacFarlane) would realize that I was saying that these things should be paid for w/ taxes [for the 6th time] & not w/ separate fees where people are given a choice.

hmm..i actually agree with mentat.

obviously if you buy property on an isolated mountain side 20 miles away from the nearest gas station, it is a bit absurd to expect the county to build a fire house special just for you. however in this case if nothing else the county should have a contract with the city where if they have to respond to an area outside the city then the fire dept. can bill the county for the cervices. if taxes are being paid services should be provided.

It is my understanding that the county voted down having their own firefighting service, and instead elected to contract with the city fire department on an individual basis (there's a very long thread on Anandtech about this).

The county should just contract out the city's fire department to handle all fire calls - it would eliminate situations such as this. However, if the residents of the county keep voting it down, what are you going to do...can't expect the neighboring city to bail your ass out for free.

Mentat, just because you are "paying taxes" doesn't mean you automatically get everything you can think of that you need from "the government". They aren't paying city taxes, and their county has no fire department, so they aren't paying taxes for any fire department. They do not have a fire department. They just don't have one. You know what happens when you don't have a fire department and you don't make other arrangements beforehand? Your house burns down.

PS for anyone wondering, here is Mentat's entire life philosophy summed up, direct quote, swear to god: