Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee

Dthief writes "From MSNBC: 'Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.'"

Comments

Well Duh

[SatanicPuppy]

Uhhh, yea. That's how it works.

Your city and county taxes pay for fire departments. If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.

It ain't rocket science. Some bubba sets his own house on fire, and then whines because the people he didn't pay, didn't come to put it out. I've lived in Tennesee: they really don't like taxes there. That's fine, but there are consequences.

Re:Well Duh

[elrous0]

Ironically, Tennessee is a state that steadfastly refuses to pass an income tax and in which any talk of raising taxes is met with crazy uproar. They had an actual riot back in 2001 when the state tried to introduce an small income tax.

This same guy who complained that the firefighters didn't save his house would probably be the first in line to scream like a girl if anyone dared propose a tax increase to pay for a fire station.

Once again, there is no free lunch, rednecks. If you want something, the money has to come from somewhere. If you want the government "off your back" then fine, but be prepared to fight your own damn fire.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fucking incomprehensible to me. What is the military budget of your country? Hundreds of billions. Here's a crazy idea: maybe take a few percent out of that and use it on BASIC FUCKING AMENETIES!! The ignorance and sociopathic insanity of it all are staggering.

What a fucked up place. Just long-sighted enough to allow terrible things to happen for the greater good, yet short-sighted enough never to fix the systemic problems that cause them to be necessary. Disgusting and pathetic.

Re:Well Duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The tricky part here is the externalities(as usual, externalities are a bitch). So, the Cranicks don't pay, they don't get service. Simple enough. There might be some ethical objections; but the economics line up just fine.

Similarly, letting them pay $75 at time of use is a no-go. Fighting a fire costs way more than $75. That's an insurance price, not a retail service price. If you allow people to buy insurance after they need it, you either go bankrupt or the cost of insurance ends up equaling the retail cost of service. You then lose the risk-pooling function of insurance. Now, for things as potentially valuable as houses and their contents, it would be sensible to have an actual retail price(set ahead of time, and publically known, to prevent extortion) that an uninsured person could pay to save a burning building, there are probably a fair few situations where the price of fighting the fire is lower than the cost of replacing the structure, so being able to pay a retail cost of approximately actual cost+service fee would be sensible for both householder and firefighting company.

However, here is where things get unpleasant: Because the Cranicks didn't pay, the firefighters allowed the fire to burn merrily, growing and spreading until it hit somebody who had paid. Now, since the paying householder's property is on fire, they likely suffered some thousands or 10s of thousands in direct combustion, smoke, and water damage. They paid, and they got shitty service. Had the firefighters used the Cranicks property to fight and stop the fire, they could have saved their customers from any damage, and done a much better job of serving them, the ones who actually paid.

Of course, if it becomes known that firefighters will fight fires around an insured property, the obvious strategy is for property owners to club together, buy insurance for 1 plot and get insurance for all for only $75/n. The fire department couldn't support itself on that. If they tried to offer two tiers, a $75 "Fires fought on your property only" and a more expensive "Fires that threaten your property fought", then this creates a perverse incentive: If I live next to a wealthy looking neighbor, I can get him to buy my fire insurance for me just by making my property more dangerous to his. Don't want to encourage that.

This is why firefighting, like certain public health measures, is very hard to elegantly force into a market model unless you are so far in the sticks that each man really is an island. Fires spread, just like diseases. Whether or not the firefighters come to my neighbor's aid matters to me(aside from any debatable moral stuff); because the raging inferno that is his burning house just needs the wind to shift for my house to be next. Even if I've paid my fee, having thousands in water damage from the firefighters, plus smoke and any combustion that occurs before they get there isn't really satisfying. I'd really rather have them fight the fire where it starts, and never have to suffer it myself, rather than insist that everyone pay, and let pockets of fire spread until they endanger me. Same way, even if I don't give a fuck about the life of the guy making my sandwich at the deli, and I don't care how poor he is, I sure do care about what immunizations he has, and whether he can take sick days; because his germs are getting into my food supply.

That is the real complexity of this story, in my opinion. There are some moral questions, but those are debatable, and there really should be a retail price set; but that is a bookkeeping matter; but if I were the insured householder I'd be absolutely livid about this. I paid my dues, and I get lousy service because they are trying to make a point? You could have completely protected my property; but chose to let a nearby building become a danger to it, when I pay you to protect my property? WTF?

Re:Well Duh

[multipartmixed]

A little bit of legislation would go a long way here.

They need to grant the fire department the right to bill you -- by a placing a lien on your property -- for fighting a fire on your property if you didn't pay the fee.

To keep things fair, homeowners could be allowed to opt out of "save my home" protection and just go with "don't spread to others" protection.

Re:Well Duh

[sznupi]

...success which greatly relies on the general state of society at large, its basic infrastructure. I wonder what could be the way to finance those.

Re:Well Duh

[alta]

If the people were inside, then it's an emergency. But no one's life was in danger, so now we're talking about a Fireman risking HIS life to save someone's crap that's probably already insured anyway.

Actually, it was the chief's call. So when two fireman die on this call what's the chief going to tell the firemen's little girls?

We sent your daddies in to save the shit of someone who didn't think their home was worth paying the fire fee?

And BTW, if you just try putting the fire out from the outside where it's safe, the house is still going to burn from the outside in. You have to go INTO the house to put it out.

Re:Well Duh

[tmosley]

Texas doesn't have an income tax either, and we manage not to burn down.

The answer isn't always more government.

Re:Well Duh

[fyngyrz]

Come on. Think. This shouldn't be an income tax. It should be a property tax. The owner of the property - not a renter, or the kid who lives there and works a job, should be responsible for such a payment. If you're renting, you include the cost in the rent. If you can't afford your property taxes, the government takes your property. Problem solved, and fairly, too.

Gambling with your home is a bad bet

[Drakkenmensch]

You have to pay your taxes if you want municipal services. If you wave it away claiming you don't want government interference in your life, then the firefighters will not interfere with fire burning down your house. The guy sadly got exactly what he argued for in the first place when he turned the city down.

Re:Gambling with your home is a bad bet

[Godai]

Well, if you RTFA, you'd hear that he didn't not pay his taxes, he forgot to pay an annual fee. He didn't say anything about not wanting "government interference". Granted, he might be lying, but either way this seems like a pretty stupid thing to let happen. Over $75 you let a house burn down that does how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars in damage? He's got insurance too, which kind of supports the idea that he wasn't trying to weasel out of paying for anything (if he's willing to pay insurance premiums, presumably he can afford an annual fee of $75) -- and the insurance is going to fork out a fair bit of money too. The net gain for everyone on this is probably minus$100k. Thank God they stuck it to him for the $75.

The bottom though is that this just demonstrates how stupid is it to have 'opt-out' on these kinds of things. What if his wife or son had been trapped inside? Would people still say the firefighters were right to stand around and watch them burn to death? The county has options on the table that include things like adding $3 a month to the electric bill (note that's less than $75 a year!) -- though I was unclear on whether it was on everyone in the county or just on the people outside the city limits (those are the only people required to pay this fee). At any rate, some things should just be part of your taxes and you should be able to expect them; having firefighters or cops or EMTs checking a list to decide who should get help is not only stupid & inhuman, and its downright counter-productive. I suspect most of the firefighters on the scene would agree with that (it sounds like several of them went home and were physically sick from having to refrain from helping).

You're kidding, right?

[Karunamon]

That's a load of sh*t and you know it. Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75? Having them show up but refuse to put water to flame is just plain mean on a level I don't quite have the words to describe. And they *did* have to show up - to make sure the neighbor's houses didn't burn down. I'd say the FD should be on the hook for the cost of the house, reckless endangerment, and cruelty to animals.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[SatanicPuppy]

Wouldn't work. Look, it's not like there are fire hydrants out there. That fire department depends on those fees to get tank trucks and other stuff you have to have to fight rural fires. If you could just pay as you go, then no one would ever pay, and the fire department wouldn't be able to afford the equipment.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would set a terrible precedent. Everyone would see that the $75 was not required and opt out. The FD would only be able to collect from people that had fires. I doubt that would be anywhere NEAR enough money to keep them operating unless they drastically increased the fee. Defeats the purpose of the shared resource if you get socked with a $50,000 bill when you had a house fire...

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a load of sh*t and you know it. Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?

That's in the article, too, if common sense couldn't tell you: then instead of paying an annual fee, people would only pay if and when their house is on fire. And since that's pretty rare, the fee would have to be raised to a ridiculous amount to cover the costs of the fire department.

I think the best solution for essential services like these is to make paying for them mandatory, i.e. by including the costs in taxes.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[weiserfireman]

The City of South Fulton doesn't have the authority to issue fines to people who don't live in their town.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[iamhassi]

"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"

I was thinking he should get a fine, like parking meters, it's only 50 cents an hour to park YMMV and no one's watching too closely and you could park and not pay, but if you're caught it's a $50+ fine.

I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house.

But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[BobMcD]

Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.

If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.

Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[jbeach]

Or, just charge everyone in the town a tax for basic town services. (ahem)

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Garrett Fox]

That's true, this is like the health care debate. In this case, someone chose not to buy the service, and the public outcry will be, "That's terrible! No one should have that choice!" Also, note that the fire victim was surprised that the FD wouldn't take his $75 while the fire was in progress. If it were health care he needed, he'd complain that his house being currently on fire is a "pre-existing condition" and that an insurer should be legally forced to insure him the moment he feels like paying.

The comparison to national health care doesn't quite fit though, because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things. It definitely does not, if the Constitution is still a meaningful limit on federal power.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[weiserfireman]

"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"

But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.

When did the firefighters of South Fulton Kentucky ever swear to serve and protect the people of Obion County Kentucky? They have no legal responsibility to protect anyone outside of their jurisdiction. The subscription fee puts them in their jurisdiction. No subscription fee, no jurisdiction.

And honestly, 90% of the Volunteer Fire Departments in my area of the country don't take any kind of Oath. I didn't take one when I was an EMT either.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[digitig]

That would set a terrible precedent. Everyone would see that the $75 was not required and opt out. The FD would only be able to collect from people that had fires. I doubt that would be anywhere NEAR enough money to keep them operating unless they drastically increased the fee.

Does the FD not have matches?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[DJRumpy]

An interesting sub-topic to be sure. Do you think he had the right to expect those services to be available to him knowing that he refused to pay into the system? I wasn't referring to the larger question of the legality of Health Care and I don't want to get too side tracked from the topic at hand with such. I was more interested in the fact that he refused to pay for the service and then expected them to provide such services for the original fee after it became an emergency.

I see that as very similar to folks who refuse to pay for health insurance, and then expect to be able to go to the emergency room for treatment. It just struck me as a little too close in general situation to the health care debate.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[ceejayoz]

Simple to fix. "Hi, we're here to put out your fire. Please sign this contract and we'll get started."

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Altus]

But emergency rooms are still required to treat the grievously injured, insured or not. What if there had been a life on the line, someone trapped inside the building. Does some kid have to die because his dad was to cheep or too stupid to pay a fee?

I understand why this happened this way but I don't see why it couldnt be structured differently. If wilderness rescue can charge a lost hiker for finding them without that hiker having to pay a $75 fee ahead of time just in case they get lost, why cant the fire department charge someone who didn't pay the fee up front. Obviously the fee for putting out the fire should be a lot more than what the person would pay if they just paid in advance but it should be an option.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[geekoid]

The bill the county, the county fines the homeowner.
Or they bill the homeowner directly.

Note:Bill not Fine.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[DJRumpy]

You don't pay taxes in Europe? You pay for it whether you realize it or not. In this case, this individual is in a separate county, so his taxes did not pay for that service. He is frankly no eligible to receive those services if he didn't pay for them.

As for me, I would never be so stupid as to refuse to pay a $75 dollar fee for fire service.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[ArmyOfFun]

Standard IANAL disclosure blah blah. It seems to me like there could be some legal responsibility here in the case of loss of life. If you have the means, the opportunity and the training to prevent loss of life without substantial personal risk but willfully do nothing, I'd think, at the very least, you'd be liable for criminal negligence if not manslaughter.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[mikael_j]

The difference here is that these areas aren't covered under the city's charter. They are simply providing a service to people who otherwise have *no* fire protection.

Speaking as someone living in the "socialist hell" of Sweden I have to say that this absolutely baffles me, I've always seen neo-liberals ranting about how the world would be perfect if we all had to pay private police and fire departments for "protection" as the crazy ramblings of people so obsessed with their pet ideology that they shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone sane, and now it seems this is actually the status quo in some parts of the US.

I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Yes, we get it, we all get it, the whole of Europe gets it. We KNOW that public services are paid for with taxes, we don't think they magically exist for free. The other thing is that we tend to pay our taxes up to the top, and then the top ensures that stuff like firefighting are paid-for nationwide. That also means that there isn't a jobsworth being employed to check whether homes currently being burnt down are covered. Frankly, this situation is stupid even for all the people who DO pay because time is wasted checking to see if they're on the list (and faffing around resolving mis-spellings, no-doubt) when the firefighters SHOULD be going to put out the fire immediately.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, they've been forcing us to buy roads, tanks, buildings, lands, art, etc, etc, etc for centuries.

Though frankly I think it was a mistake not to offer a public option. Pretty much pointless without that. Still no real competition among insurance companies.

Why is it that, if I buy car insurance, it's just about me but if I buy health insurance it's completely contingent on my workplace? Buying health insurance for just me should be cheap, and yet it's not, and I have no alternative but to take the crap that's available to my workplace.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[rhsanborn]

But people get health insurance for more than just emergency events. So, enough people have health insurance that we can, theoretically, cover these costs. This doesn't work with fighting fires. In general, either your house is on fire, or it isn't. If every fire station had to respond to fires as a matter of law, then there would be no incentive to pay these fire fees and, therefore, no money to cover the cost of fighting these fires.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Brain-Fu]

I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house.

So then he can sue them claiming that since he didn't sign a contract for their help, they shouldn't have helped, and therefore can't charge him for help, and therefore can't take his house. Further, if they made him sign a contract on the spot, he can try to get it invalidated by saying he wasn't of sound mind and body when he signed it (since his house was on fire).

I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.

They didn't swear to serve and protect the public. They get paid to protect the people who pay them. They have no obligation to work for free, any more than you have an obligation to do your job for free.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[sirrunsalot]

You never know what the whole story is. If I were desperately trying to keep my head above water and avoid foreclosure, I might let this fee lapse, assuming the chance of losing my house to foreclosure is much greater than losing it to a fire. Now I have no idea whether that's the situation or not, but I would agree that it should follow health care rules, i.e. that an emergency room is obligated to help a patient and sort out the billing later.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[AAWood]

As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.

We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[bberens]

Think of all the new construction jobs created by having to rebuild the house. Why do you hate jobs creation?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[JWSmythe]

You shouldn't be embarrassed by not knowing it. You should be embarrassed that you live in a country where such a thing would happen.

    Where I live (same country, different state), if there's an emergency, emergency response workers show up and do their job. If they are the closest available unit, they'll cross city and/or county boundaries to help people.

    After that's all done, if there is a fee, it's handled by financial people. It's possible his homeowner insurance may have paid the costs related to reducing their cost. A fire that damages one wall is a lot cheaper to replace than an entire house and the contained possessions. I know, TFA said that his coverage wouldn't cover everything in his house, but that wouldn't have really mattered since it wouldn't have been a total loss.

    Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Moryath]

You missed the point - he offered to pay WHATEVER IT TOOK.

Instead, these assholes let the house burn, killing the pets, and the "Mayor" defends this.

They should all be fired and then stand trial for animal cruelty. Period.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[AAWood]

OK, I'll bite.

"Over here, we have this crazy idea that PEOPLE run the government, not the other way around, and that they can CHOOSE not to have their government provide a certain service if they don't want their tax dollars being spent on it."

From my perspective, I don't care. I want the people around me to be safe from big-life changing (or ending) problems that might arise in or out of their control, and fire is pretty high on that list. I don't care if that is something decided by national government or local, and I don't care if that decision is made with or without input by the people. In most cases, the opinion of the people is routed through so many local officials and lobbyists, shaped through media and pressure groups, and interpreted by national officials and groups such that by the end, the actual will of the people is, if nothing else, impossible to accurately verify.

"Fought a war over that one. Forgot who won. Do you remember?"

I assume you mean the American civil war, and yes, America won. I'm rather sketchy on what that has to do with this topic though?

"By the way, that $75 as a tax would mean that failure to pay would result in loss of household in about three years anyway. As a voluntary fee, failure to pay might result in loss of household IF there is a fire. You choose you r poison, you takes your chances."

IF you can afford it. It's a big if for more people than you might think. Again, as I said above, I don't care about how a particular person gets help when they need it, and if they aren't paying the tax I don't care if it's because they're cheap, stupid, needy, ill, or unlucky. I don't want to worry that someone I know is going to get into a spiral of problems where their income drops, they aren't able to keep up with payments for things I'd consider basic or essential, and then the universe bites them in the ass. I just want to know they are safe. If you consider that opinion to be flamebait, so be it.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[slimjim8094]

Nobody was in the house, and if there were I'm sure they would've intervened and (hopefully) recovered their costs.

First of all, firefighters swear no such oath.
Second of all, this wasn't their area of obligation - had there been a fire in the city, they damn sure should've been there as opposed to this backwater area
Third of all, fire departments are ridiculously expensive to run; that's why it should be a tax across everybody! They can't let this guy get away with not paying and getting service anyways, or everybody would do it and the FD just wouldn't be able show up at all out of town.
Fourth of all, the obligation they *did* have was to his neighbor who *did* pay the fee that year. They kept *his* house safe

This guy was burning his trash while refusing to pay for fire service. He was probably one of the ones refusing to pay a tax increase for county fire service. He doesn't exactly deserve any sympathy.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Sorry the comparison to the Health Care Coverage debaty is not a good one. If would hold water if instead of paying the bill it was the doctor, or hosptital that refused service. In that case the person is not denied the medical help he needs, he just has to pay for it. Hospitals I don't think can turn people away from the emergency room. (nor shoud they). The same should be true of Fire Departments, they should put out the fire and charge him. Then the models would match.

It is unconscionable that they would deny putting out the fire, while they were there on the scene, for a meer $75 fee. I have to say that the progressive and dare I say it Christian view would provide the service to your neighbor in time of need. Fire, police and health should be basic services provided to communities and supported by all. Insurance can be optional thats fine, but this is a good example of business thinking overriding morals and ethics. Here the only ethic is getting the money.

So many of us left Europe to get away from things like Debtor's prison. Another old and tired and morally bankrupt practice of jailing someone with at debt, this is very close to that same ethic. Haven't we evolved passed this?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Naturalis Philosopho]

because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things.

Huh? I believe that I'm "forced" to pay for Interstate Highways, Federal Police, the Military, and plenty of other things which are of only indirect benefit. If you don't like the health care proposal, do us all a favor and dislike it for a real reason, ok?

Right now I'm paying for people who don't have health insurance through higher hospital costs passed on to me due to all of the freeloaders who use the ER as their only doctor. I'd rather everyone pay less to keep them healthy and maybe employed, or at least employable, rather than pay more to have them sit around sick and on welfare. People losing their house is this manner is a direct analogy; too cheap to pay for their own fire service, they're even too cheap to pay $75 insurance for another town's fire service, they are now homeless and my taxes will go toward their welfare. Make the bastards pay a little so that we don't have to pay it all for them. Heck, the fire dept. was stupid too. It will cost us all a ton to help this family back onto their feet; if we'd just all be "forced" to pay in equally then this wouldn't happen. Or, give up, tell them to go homeless, and then pay more for police to arrest and house them (in prison) when they steal to eat.

Fact is, we all pay for everyone's stupidity. It's only a matter of how we pay, and how much. Your choice.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[anUnhandledException]

You really think that will work.

As the price rises the default rate also rises and this ends up creating a viscous cycle.

Say average response cost is $10,000. Now at $10,000 maybe you get on average $2,000 collected (some pay in full, some partially pay, a lot don't pay a dime). So simply you just increase the cost to $50,000 per response call right so on average you get $10,000 from each response (some will pay full $50K, some a fraction, and many none)?

I think you can see the problem with that. The repayment rate at $50,000 will be a tiny fraction of it at $10,000. Thus as your raise price the expected return doesn't rise linearly. Once you get to extreme prices the "benefit" to default begins rising rapidly and consumer behavior will respond. You stack the deck against the consumer enough and they will take the optimal option no matter how morally gray it is.

No business works where the cost of defaults is only borne by those who default.

If it did for example you would see 3% credit cards for people who have never defaulted. Risk free return is about 1% of short term interest however even among those with spotless lifetime long credit records they pay 7%, 8%, even 12% on balances.

Another example would be hospitals. The insured pay for the cost of the uninsured. Collections on uninsured as so pathetically low that to full collect the cost of treatment from them is impossible.

Medical debt often collects less than $0.01 on the dollar. To full collect the cost of procedures only from the uninsured the "cash" price would need to be 100x the actual cost. The problem with that is you give someone a bill for $1.8 million and most people will simply file bankruptcy. You can never collect enough to have the uninsured "pay their way".

The idea that you can pay for non covered customers only from non covered customers without the help of the pre-insured customers isn't based on any economic or pricing theory. In reality it is a good way for the fire dept to go bankrupt.

socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you don't have socialism.

Re:socialism

[RoFLKOPTr]

This is what happens when you don't have socialism.

Translation: "When you don't have socialism, the prick that refuses to subscribe to a voluntary fire service from a neighboring city because he doesn't want to have to pay money for things he doesn't think he needs doesn't get fire service. When you DO have socialism, the prick is FORCED to pay for the fire service that he doesn't want." Yeah, sounds like a great plan.

Though, to be fair, there are a few things that really ought to be socialized, fire service being one of them. I'm more using the above as a metaphor for other various government and non-government services that aren't as important to the lives of other people around you.

Re:socialism

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't have any particular stake in it. It just irritates me when it is suggested that private services are necessarily better than public ones.

Re:socialism

[kaiser423]

There's obviously not a market for a competing department, otherwise the free market would have sprung one up. There's nothing keeping them from making their own for-fee fire department.

There are volunteer FD's all over the nation....some that act pretty much as a business, so there's nothing "socialist" about it -- they *could* set up another fire department, but they didn't.

Re:socialism

[imunfair]

I don't see the problem here - the guy was so cheap he didn't want to pay $6.25/month for fire department protection, so he didn't get the services. Exactly the same as getting cancer after choosing not to pay for health insurance.

I think the problem with offering a one time fire-fighting fee of $7500 or whatever is that people would fight it in court as a decision made under duress, and might actually win.

This happened to me once!

[Idimmu Xul]

This one time I didn't have contents insurance and got robbed and all the insurance companies stood around doing nothing because I didn't have a policy with any of them!

Re:This happened to me once!

[rwven]

All I'm saying is that it's a good thing EMS services don't operate under the same principal...

Uh..

[iONiUM]

I realize they were in their "rights" legally and such to put out the neighbours fire and not his.. (from the TFA, they just sat there and made sure it didn't spread). But I mean, as a human, what the fuck. Is there so little empathy?

Why couldn't they have put it out and then billed him? He probably would have been so happy he would have paid it. This reeks of callousness. What have "we" become (I'm not american, but I am a human, I think..)

Re:Uh..

[MozeeToby]

As decent human beings, I would imagine that many of the firefighters wanted to help the guy out. On the other hand, what kind of precedent does that set? Don't pay and your house is on fire? Well, I guess we'll help out this time. What incentive would there be for anyone to pay the fee if they all knew that the fire department would come and help them out anyway? No... as much as it pains me to say it, the fire department made the right choice, if they had done anything else the whole system would fall apart. Maybe that would have been a good thing, but I don't see that it is the firefighters job to make that decision.

Re:Uh..

[geekoid]

NO, you bill them for the cost, not the missed payment. The entire cost. which I believe is about 7500 dollars.

Re:Uh..

[Ephemeriis]

I realize they were in their "rights" legally and such to put out the neighbours fire and not his.. (from the TFA, they just sat there and made sure it didn't spread). But I mean, as a human, what the fuck. Is there so little empathy?

As human beings, I'm sure there was plenty of empathy. And now that this guy's got national attention, I'm sure there will be plenty more. There'll be donations a-plenty. He'll probably be fine.

But water isn't free... Nor is the gas to drive the truck out there... Nor are the paychecks that all the fire fighters collect... You can't really run a fire department for free. If they start running around, putting out fires for free, pretty soon there won't be a fire department at all.

Why couldn't they have put it out and then billed him? He probably would have been so happy he would have paid it. This reeks of callousness. What have "we" become (I'm not american, but I am a human, I think..)

Fire departments cost money all the time, not just when stuff is on fire. You have to pay to maintain the equipment, pay the employees, etc. You need that money year-round, not just when stuff is on fire. And, if you're lucky, more people pay you (via taxes or fees) than people actually have fires. So you don't have to charge every single person the full cost of putting out their fire.

If they were allowed to collect money at the time of the fire, nobody would pay ahead of time. I mean, hell, why would you? Pay $75 now on the off chance that you might have a fire... Or pay $75 when your house is actually in flames, and if it never burns you don't have to pay... Tough choice!

But then the fire department has no money to maintain anything, no money to hire anyone. And then you've got no fire department at all.

Re:Uh..

[geekoid]

It set the precedent that your human beings.

I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.

I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.

The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.

This is America

[BadAnalogyGuy]

This is what has happened in America. If you don't pay, if you can't pay, you will not get services. We have turned into the Randian utopia of rugged individualists who have given up on treating each other as human beings.

We treat each other like consumers.

It's sad, and it's one of the things I had hoped the Obama era would overcome. Unfortunately, it seems like the problem has only been exacerbated.

Re:This is America

[SatanicPuppy]

Dude, it's the state, not the country. Don't blame fricking Obama for the problems of Fulton County Tennesee's rural fire department! That's just absurd.

In most other states, there'd be a state income tax, or a hefty county tax, or a sales tax or something to support fire coverage for all the citizens in the county. They didn't want that there, so there is a fee. And if you don't pay it, you're screwed. And it's their own bed to lie in.

Another win

[geekoid]

for libertarians everywhere.

Re:Another win

[sarhjinian]

Libertarianism has the same flaws as communism: it doesn't really work--especially on a large scale---because actual people are involved, and people are not neat little Randian or Marxist entities but complex, real-world things. Arguing that "it's better" or "real libertarianism has never been tried" is exactly the same kind of self-delusional wankery that Marxists exercise.

You couldn't guarantee that "a libertarian would have put out the fire" because it's equally likely that a libertarian might buy the fire department and then go around starting fires in order to make money. Libertarians are people, too, and subject to the same nobility and failings as people everywhere.

This is why democratic socialism will win every single damn time: it's not perfect (far from it) but it's built assuming that people will be people, whereas know-it-all totalitarism or anarchism are divorced from how people actually act.

No, that's not it at all

[Space cowboy]

They turned up to stop the spread of the fire to a neighbouring property, then they stood and watched as the house burnt to the ground, killing the animals inside. The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it, and they refused, they just watched his house, his life's possessions, and his pets burn alive.

I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.

Simon

Re:No, that's not it at all

[0123456]

I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.

How long do you think there would be firefighters to call if you could just pay $75 when you have to call them out because your house is on fire? That's like crashing your car into a Ferrari and _then_ offering to pay $100 for insurance because you 'forgot' to pay the premium beforehand.

If that behaviour became the norm then no-one would pay and the next time someone's house caught fire the whole area would burn down.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[alta]

For those of you that say "Why didn't they put it out when the guy pleaded to pay the $75?" Sorry, that's SOP. If they agreed to this EVERYONE would fail to pay the $75/year and they'd just offer to pay after the fire dept came. You have to realize that it costs a lot more than $75 to pay for FD services. The $75 is effectively an insurance, $75 alone doesn't come anywhere NEAR the cost of putting out a single fire.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[alta]

This person lived outside of the city fire jurisdiction. The had been petitioned by the people in the county to extend their coverage, but since those people didn't want to incorporate as part OF the city, the city offered to agree to put out fires for people who wanted to pay the $75 fee. So, this is a service the city is doing for those that pay for it.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[vlm]

I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.

I agree with you, he should have paid his $75. Sounds like the kind of guy that won't buy a car seat for his infant kids or vet service for his pets "to save money".

You've got to remember, some folks just don't care, and this guys house, junk, and pets wasn't worth $75 to him.

I'm not sure what strategy is most productive to get the guy (and others in similar situation) to pay. Maybe publicizing his story to embarrass him?

Re:No, that's not it at all

[Tangential]

The real problem is why this is a voluntary fee?

From what I've read, this is a voluntary fee because they do not live within the city limits. The city has no obligation to also serve people who reside outside of it. When I was a kid, folks out in the country (outside of the city limits) could pay a fee to have their kids attend the city school system, instead of the county schools. This is pretty similar.

It looks like this homeowner specifically declined to pay the $75. If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[Outlander Engine]

They refused his $75 because on principal.

If they allowed folks to pay them the $75 AFTER the house started burning, no one would pay at all.

As for his pets, those were his fault. They were his responsibility and he failed them.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[elrous0]

This is Tennessee we're talking about. Any attempt to do that would be met by a rally of tea-partiers calling you a socialist. Got to keep the government off our backs, you know.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[vlm]

They should set things up so that everyone pays, or they get a fine or go to jail. To make that work I guess you'd have to have the government in charge of fire protection, but then they could make sure everyone got it. Then there wouldn't be issues like this.

Another fun issue is the firemen can be better firemen if they're only firemen and not tax clerks.

There is a little old lady at my local city hall that hands me a receipt when I pay my annual property taxes. She's done a great job for ten years. And I know a couple firefighters whom do a pretty good job. Based on my experience, the Venn diagram set of "great firefighters" and "great tax clerks" probably has minimal overlap.

Sooner or later there will be an epic fail where the records are not up to date.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[hibiki_r]

It is quite different.

A regular insurance policy is nothing more than a bet: You pay X per year, and in case of your death, your beneficiaries get Y back: If putting X in an investment fund would have netted you more than Y at the time of death, the insurance company wins, if Y is greater, you and your family win, so paying for coverage after you want to make a claim just doesn't work.

Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.

So the real problem is not the fact that this guy was unwise in his choice to not pay for the fire coverage, but on the fact that there was no mechanism to allow him to make a far higher contribution on site, for a final result that was superior to every party involved.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[anUnhandledException]

However the county is controlled by voters, voters such as this guy who felt $75 less in expenses was a good tradeoff for leaving his home vulnerable to fire.
The county can have at any point in last 20 years simply funded their own fire dept but didn't. That likely gives some insight into the views and wants of the voters.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[Obfuscant]

I'm all for the free market, but making a public good like firefighting or police service an opt-in fee is stupid and results in dumb, avoidable tragic circumstances.

This has nothing to do with "free market". There is no competition in the marketplace, there is no other provider.

What this IS is an example of democracy. The people of that county are free to rule themselves in this matter. If they wanted a tax on everyone to pay for this, they could vote for it. Alternatively, their county commissioners could have voted for it, if their constituents wanted it. Apparently they decided not to. That is their RIGHT in a free society.

While the Constitution tells us what jobs are rightly the government's, nothing says that the PEOPLE can't decide they don't want their government doing one of them. It's not as if the local government's aren't able to levy taxes at the drop of a hat to pay for whatever stuff the commissioners or councils feel like doing.

It is none of our business how they want to tax themselves. Unless you live there, you don't get a vote, and your opinion doesn't matter.

Yes, I think it is stupid not to have this protection paid for out of property taxes, but my opinion doesn't matter, either. I suspect that the city fire department would love to have it tax-based so they get more money, and I also suspect that this will get the county to implement a new tax.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[anUnhandledException]

the county gets it's authority FROM the voters of the county. Maybe the voters of the county don't want coverage.

I mean Democracy is about representing the will of the people. Nobody said the people always make the right decisions.

Maybe this incident will either
a) cause county to fund it's own fire dept
b) cause legislation for county to pay for "universal coverage" via taxes to pass

or maybe the county will still not want "big govt" forcing people to get thing they don't want.

I mean if the people in the county don't want forced coverage who is going to force them to get it.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[rochberg]

For those of you that say "Why didn't they put it out when the guy pleaded to pay the $75?"

First correction: He did not offer to pay $75. He offered to pay whatever the cost to put out the fire.

If they agreed to this EVERYONE would fail to pay the $75/year and they'd just offer to pay after the fire dept came. You have to realize that it costs a lot more than $75 to pay for FD services. The $75 is effectively an insurance, $75 alone doesn't come anywhere NEAR the cost of putting out a single fire.

You are exactly right. So clearly, just billing the $75 is not adequate. So, like you said, treat it as insurance. Consider the parallels to the medical world (at least the idealized version of it). If you have health insurance and go to the emergency room, you pay $X, which is significantly less than the actual cost of service. If you don't have insurance, you have to pay for the actual services used. So do the same thing in this situation. The invoice could be:

• 8 firefighters, billed at $200/hour for the duration. If it takes 3 hours of work, that's $4800.
• $5000 for use of the truck.
• $1000 for the water.
• $500 for the call to dispatch.
• Grand total: $11,300

Again, that's what the guy offered to pay...not just the $75. Basically, it comes out to skipping the $75 payment for 150 years. To me, that's plenty of incentive to pay $75 a year for guaranteed service.

Interesting follow-on to this story: One of Cranick's relatives later went to the fire station and punched the chief that ordered the firefighters not to put out the fire (even though they were on the scene). He's now been charged with assault, but I know a lot of people who want to contribute to the guy's legal defense fund.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[JordanL]

It's important to remember that the $75 fee doesn't just pay for putting out that one fire, and if you charged for the cost of putting out that one fire that wouldn't actually cover your cost either.

You have to pay to have MORE firefighters to cover a larger area, and these fighters have health coverage, and pensions, and sick days, etc. You need more equipment for those firefighters, etc.

The idea that you can correctly assess the cost of "putting out this fire" is ridiculous.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[demonlapin]

He has no relationship with the town in question. He doesn't live in its jurisdiction. He could choose to subscribe to their fire service, or not. He chose not, and by doing so took a gamble. He lost.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[ArcherB]

This is Tennessee we're talking about. Any attempt to do that would be met by a rally of tea-partiers calling you a socialist. Got to keep the government off our backs, you know.

I guess I have to tell you this since you obviously don't know. However, ignorance didn't seem to stop you from spouting off.

The TEA Party has no problem with taxes for local services. TEA Partiers have a problem with the federal government providing services they have no business providing that can be handled better and more efficiently by local governments.

This guy is a poster case for personal responsibility. You'll notice most conservatives here are saying that his house burning down was his fault whereas liberals are saying that the fire department should have saved his house even though he chose not to pay the fee. The problem is that liberals don't seem to understand that if you start offering services for those who don't pay for them, pretty soon, no one will be paying for the services that everyone is entitled to.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[thrillseeker]

Ah yes ... the government, whether you like it or not, approach. For the children ...

Re:No, that's not it at all

[fyngyrz]

The city has no obligation to also serve people who reside outside of it.

The county does, though. And they should have been collecting that $75.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[commodore64_love]

>>>lowered property values for the entire neighborhood...

Bullshit. That's the same argument the Housing Association gave when they refused to let my parents put an antenna on the roof (to get TV). The lawyer, who was quite good, dug-out the 1996 Telecommuncations Act which gave my parents the right to erect an antenna. He also noted several other laws the HA was in violation of (requiring a certain kind of grass), which eventually led to the judge dismantling the HA for multiple counts of abuse against citizens.

You see: Congress decided freedom to "pursue happiness"
  was more important than property values. Freedom means nothing, if you are not truly free to make your own choices.

I don't insure my car. Do you think you have a right to FORCE me to insure it? You don't. Neither do you have a right to force me to insure my house.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[adisakp]

Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.

It's the exact same as insurance -- by charging a small fee per house, the fire dept is betting that only 1 house out of every couple thousand will catch on fire per year.

If you let them pay after the fact, both sides don't win. It costs way more than $75 to put out a fire -- the cost is amortized by the fact that a fire only occurs for every couple thousand or so citizens who pay the fee. The actual cost of putting out the fire may be $100,000 or more (if you consider the cost of fire dept, vehicles, having fire fighters on standby, etc). If you allow people to pay $75 only when you need services, the fire department will incur a huge loss because it's "betting" that 1,999 out of 2,000 people won't have fires when they charge the $75 fee.

The only way to make the cost a win for the city/fire-dept side would be to charge the person the actual cost of putting out the fire (and running the fire department / number of fires per year). This might result in a charge of $100,000 - $200,000 to the person and might actually be more than their house and possessions are worth.... and note this isn't really a win for the city - it's just break-even cost -- and that assumes you can collect the $200,000 from someone whose house just burned down because insurance doesn't pay for saved houses, only destroyed ones.

The only practical way to do it is to enforce the fact that when someone opts out of paying for a service, they have opted out of receiving that service.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[publiclurker]

I personally have more important things to do with my money than to waste it repairing my car because some self important twat runs into it and won't make it right. Your are Damn right that you should be forced to insure your car. If you can't be a respectable part of the community then you can keep you car in the garage for as long as you want, but as soon as you go out with the grownups, you had better be able to follow the rules.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[honkycat]

It's not even remotely ridiculous to hope to accurately assess the cost of a fire. The direct costs are obvious, and it's straightforward to figure out the standing costs per month of the department and the number of fires in an average month. I'm sure they've already done this in determining the $75 fee, in fact.

The on-site cost will be far higher than the $75, but there's no reason not to permit it. Perhaps you don't make the same guarantee of ability to provide timely response, but it seems extremely shortsighted to refuse service to property within the general service area in the way they've done here.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[pugugly]

Except that by definition, if you think "making a public good like firefighting or police service an opt-in fee is stupid and results in dumb, avoidable tragic circumstances" you're not *actually* "all for the free market".

This is Ayn Rand in Practice. It is also the reason why these Balanced Budget, Socially and economically Conservative states (By and Large, an with caveats for the current recession) get more in taxes than they send to Washington and are being being subsidized by those stupid Liberal States.

Because that stupid liberal keynesian economics actually works. Although I swear to god, as near as I can tell the main insight Keynes made is that "Dollar for Dollar Poor and Middle Class People contribute to the Economy far more than the wealthy do"

Pug

Re:No, that's not it at all

[shutdown -p now]

They refused his $75 because on principal. If they allowed folks to pay them the $75 AFTER the house started burning, no one would pay at all.

Right. So you let the family's entire possessions, and their live pets, burn "on principle" to teach them and everyone else a lesson. Gotcha.

I take it you don't mind millions of $$$ that RIAA sues people for, either. After all, they also do it "on principle", since otherwise no-one would pay at all!

Re:No, that's not it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the issues with this is that you cannot enter into a contract if you are under distress. I think that an court in the land with agree that your house burning is under distress. This would void the contract to pay whatever the cost, so he would not have to pay anything. Not even the $75.

Nope, not kidding.

[MyLongNickName]

Load of shit? Ok, I have 200 people under this arrangement. 100 pay, 100 don't. One of the 100 who don't pay end up needing the service. I bill him $75 but the other 99 don't pay but, in effect, got the service.

What is the incentive for ANYONE to pay in this type of arrangement?

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[MyLongNickName]

Basically you are now forcing firefighters to be bill collectors. What do they do, negotiate with the guy on the spot?

No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[metlin]

You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?

While there are several solutions (and theories) in place, the fact remains that you'll always have a percentage of free-riders. Of course, in a purely capitalistic model, this is solved because every service has an associated cost with it, and those that don't pay the cost don't get the service (e.g. this case). In socialism, you pay a larger chunk (e.g. taxes) and you get a plethora of services, freeing you from the worry of particular services -- but then, you do not get to pick and choose.

Typically, life-or-death services (e.g. police/fire) fall under the latter, but I guess rural Tennessee is different.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[operagost]

That's a straw man. The man would be billed like he would for property taxes. If he didn't pay, then a lien would be placed against his house. What we're missing here is the consequence of the FD's decision not to put out the fire: it spread to a neighbor's field. It's fortunate that it didn't damage any structures, because if it had then the neighbor would have had a serious grievance. Fires should not be allowed to burn freely for any reason because they pose a threat to the community.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[iamhassi]

"Pay your service fees if you wish to receive your service. It's a win-win."

Are you nuts? What if all of government did this? Want police? Pay up front. Want to call 911? That's $5 a minute. Want to drive on the road? Charged by the mile via GPS. Want your kids to go to school? All schools charge, public schools don't exist. Want to walk on the sidewalk? Toll sidewalks every 100 yards.

No food stamps, no welfare, no Medicaid, no WIC for low-income pregnant women, no Section 8, no child or adult care programs, no free school lunches for children of low-income families, etc.

Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high. Yes, the homeowner says he pays taxes so he's not getting a huge break here, sounds like he's just getting screwed with no fire department.

They should have done what hospitals do when a ambulance shows up: you get a bill in the mail, thousands of dollars for the ambulance ride.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[MyLongNickName]

Bingo.

So instead of pointing at the big bad nasty firefighters, go point the finger at the "government is evil" crowd who insists that any tax is bad and that we would be better off living in a libertarian utopia.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[SatanicPuppy]

There isn't a fire department where he lives. It'd be like you suing the fire department in the next town over for problems with the fire department in your own town.

And if he paid any substantial amount of taxes, his county'd probably have a fire department (it's generally considered a critical service). Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax, so no money from there either.

People want really low taxes, but this is the result: really poor services.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[spasm]

"No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation."

I think you mean "Blame the voters who are so anti-tax that they refuse to provide the necessary funds to even cover collective, necessary services."

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[roman_mir]

You really are preaching to me? I am against all gov't intervention into economy, this includes everything you mentioned, you can check my earlier posts, which I have conveniently provided links to.

I am against gov't owning any assets and providing any services except Justice system and minimum military to protect against foreign invasions.

Clearly I am against IRS, FED, FDIC, Freddie/Fannie, income taxes, regulations, wage laws, price fixing, providing any special interests with any special treatment no matter who they are and what they can and do pay.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[Idarubicin]

No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation.

Missed it by one.

Blame the people who kept electing county officials who promised lower taxes. Blame the people who couldn't see that putting an annual $75 charge on everyone's property tax bill would have provided coverage for all the rural properties. Blame the people who didn't clue in that they could probably negotiate a significant group discount if they paid for universal coverage (both because more people would be buying the service, and because the fire department wouldn't have to manage a parallel bill collection scheme). This sort of failure of private firefighting isn't exactly rare; why does the media portray it as surprising and shocking every time it happens again?

It's not some nebulous 'government' bogeyman who screwed up here; governments don't appear out of a vacuum. Entirely to blame are the selfish and shortsighted people who live in the county in question.

Re:Nope, not kidding.

[stdarg]

Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high.

Why?

Re:This is what taxes are for

[Idimmu Xul]

This is the kind of thing taxes are for - essential public services. The fact that the home burned to the ground was a travesty, but not so great as the lack of funding for the fire department in the first place. All that being said, charging residents $75 just in case is absurd. His county should pay his losses and fix their tax situation!

A publicly funded fire brigade? What's next? Public healthcare? You dirty socialist!

The Better Policy

[WED Fan]

Perhaps the better policy would be to go ahead and fight the fire and then put a lein on the property. So, you pay the yearly fee, or in case of fire, you pay a fine.

Re:The Better Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

A local radio commentator presented what I believe to be a reasonable solution: if you don't pay, you don't get insurance/protection. If you have a fire and want protection, you pay a large fee (potentially the full cost of the fire fighting activity).

This is better than just fining people who don't pay and have a fire. First, they're *already* fined by the fact they've had a fire, so it's not really necessary to fine them again. Second, they may actually choose not to have the fire put out - maybe an old house burnt down to make room for a new house. Third, there is a mechanism to get emergency response even when the original insurance isn't paid. Fourth, the price of the emergency response is significantly enough higher than the insurance that it avoids encouraging people to not pay at all (it's silly to not pay for insurance but expect coverage).

Libertarian Paradise

[Tablizer]

Nuff sed.

Re:Libertarian Paradise

[HappyEngineer]

Only for extreme Libertarians.

Not every Democrat is Ralph Nader. Not every Republican is Sarah Palin. Not every Libertarian is Ayn Rand.

As a moderate libertarian I think certain services need to be provided for by the government in situations where the market simply will not work properly. The fire department is certainly an obvious example of that.

Just because I believe that does not mean I've jumped to the other end of the spectrum where I'd love an HOA on every block telling me what color my fence can be.

yup

[nomadic]

In case any of you are wondering, this is exactly the reason why a lot of us detest libertarianism, and refuse to vote for Ron Paul not because they think he can't win but because they think he would ruin this country.

Re:yup

[IndustrialComplex]

You need to believe more than you just read on the internet about what some guy told you these other guys believe.

Re:This is what taxes are for

[SatanicPuppy]

I absolutely disagree with the idea that the state should have to pay for this joker's bad decisions. That's money out of all of our pockets because he can't make a rational choice.

Forcing everyone to pay for fire coverage (via taxes) is fine. But that doesn't mean that we owe some joker in some county that didn't feel the need.

What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay rape

[Joe The Dragon]

What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?

fireman and cops should be payed for with taxes!

also will the fireman pass up a burning car as they don't know if the people in the car payed?

This what the republic want for health care but with health care buying on your own can cost $1000+ month with a big list of stuff not coved and if you are sick then it can be hard to get it at all. Some job only have that min med that cost about $700+ year + copays with $2000 MAX YEAR PAY OUT AND that is joke care.

A Libertarian World

[goodmanj]

There's a lot of libertarians here on Slashdot. Well, this is what a libertarian utopia looks like, kids. If this strikes you as unjust and cruel, you'd probably better stop listening to Glen Beck on the teevee, and start voting for candidates who believe that government is a useful thing.

(If, on the other hand, you're happy with the outcome of this story, that's cool, you're not a hypocrite, and, we can agree to disagree.)

As for "why not put out the fire and then bill him", the $75 fee is not to put out the fire, it's to keep the fire department running when there *isn't* a fire. You can no more pay the bill after you need the service than you can wait until after you get cancer to start paying for medical insurance. The system can't work that way.

Re:A Libertarian World

[goodmanj]

Remember, they're not *his* firefighters, they're from the next town over. His nonexistent local government has no fire service: I bet it would have no objection if you wanted to buy yourself a tanker truck and set up your own private fire company.

But nobody does this, because fire protection is an absolutely shitty way to make a living in the 21st century. There's no profit in it unless you run around setting fires yourself.

Unprofitable but indispensable social services: this is what government is good at.

Re:A Libertarian World

[hibiki_r]

it can't if the fee for 'on the spot' payment is very low, but it could if the fee was high enough to keep the department running between fires. If the fire department takes 20K to run every month, and there's on average one fire a month, a non-subscription fee of 20K for putting out a fire without subscription would allow the fire department to run with a minimum initial investment, either by a private party or the government.

The problem here is that there was no procedure whatsoever to deal with a non-payer whose house can be saved. A form contract in the fire truck that the owner can sign to accept some kind of lien on the property to pay for the fire extinguishing costs plus a penalty would have saved the house, taught the homeowner a lesson and made the fire department richer.

Re:A Libertarian World

[dcw3]

Please link to any national level Libertarian site that indicates we should do away with essential public services. And, I'm no fan of Beck's, but I have listened to him, and highly doubt that he'd be in favor of that either...but if you can't find a quote, I'll openly eat my words here.

This is why Libertarians are morally bankrupt

[pnuema]

Your political philosophy does not work. At one time, all fire departments operated under these terms; there were no municipally supported fire companies. You know what the number one cause of fires was during those times? Fire departments. Give me some good old fashioned socialism any day. Libertarian philosophy - or as I like to call it, "Fuck you, I've got mine", has already been tried. We rejected feudalism hundreds of years ago. Why go backwards?

Re:This is why Libertarians are morally bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Being one of the 'Fuck you, I've got mine' mind set let me point out that socialism - or as I like to call it, 'fuck you, I know what is best for you', has already been tried as well. It doesn't work either and it makes people dependent on the government for everything. We rejected feudalism hundreds of years ago. Why go back?

Counterpoint

[Pollux]

If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.

But in the interest of public good, a fire that's allowed to burn out-of-control at one home could spread to another home, or to a forest, extending the initial threat from a single private residence to the general welfare of the public. If I were this man's neighbor, and the fire that the fire department let burn suddenly engulfed my house as well, I would be quite the irate citizen.

There is public good in not permitting a fire from growing, regardless of whether or not someone payed their municipal fees. As such, fire protection should be a public service guaranteed to all citizens, funded through taxes, rather than be an optional insurance paid for at the individual level. We realized long ago that individual and/or private firefighting services were not in the best interests of the public.

Re:Counterpoint

[Wrath0fb0b]

There is public good in not permitting a fire from growing, regardless of whether or not someone payed their municipal fees. As such, fire protection should be a public service guaranteed to all citizens, funded through taxes

First, there are no municipal fees, this is the county we are talking about. Second, the voters of Fulton County considered this argument and decided they would rather not have yet another tax assessed on their houses when the city provides the same service for less. Maybe now they will reconsider, but there's nothing unreasonable in saying "It would cost us $200/house in taxes to set up our own fire dept but the city agreed to provide it for $75." In fact, getting fire service for $75 instead of $200 and avoiding unnecessary duplication in equipment, training and organization is an unalloyed public good.

The wrinkle is that since the city doesn't have the authority to tax country residents outside city limits and the county cannot tax the residents and give the money to the city, it has to be organized as a voluntary subscription. So I'm not sure if your argument here is "the county should tax the residents and set up a duplicative fire dept." or "the county should be allowed to tax its residents and give the money to the city in lieu of setting up it's own fire dept". The latter makes sense, the former is total bollocks.

Animal Rights count, too...

[Anonymous Coward]

If that happened in the UK, the fire brigade would be facing charges of negligence, and the RSPCA would be taking legal action against them for knowingly and willingly causing harm to animals.

Re:well maybe

[Gadget_Guy]

The problem with that policy is that it endangers the neighbor's houses and everyone's lives. If I were a paid-up neighbor, I would be pissed off at any damage that could have been prevented.

I really don't see what the problem is. If the householder doesn't pay the $75, charge them $1000 when you come out to save the house. That way the surrounding properties are not put in danger, the fire department gets more money than they otherwise would have and they don't end up looking like petty, money hungry dicks.

Everybody hates the government

[SlappyBastard]

Right up until the moment they need the government. Ain't it a bitch?

I was raised liberal in a redneck part of the country. And a lot of kids I grew up with thought it was clever to call the cops "the pigs". The first time my mom caught me pulling that shit, she pulled me aside and bitched me out, telling me, "You won't be calling a pig on the day you need a cop."

Frankly, I like nice roads. I like a school tax that enables stores to hire cashiers who can read. I like the idea that if any brown people overthrow their government while I'm on vacation that I can go to the embassy and the Marines will fly me the fuck out of there.

I'm a supporter of paying higher taxes -- just make sure I get some decent services to go with it.

Sad, but I can't help but be thrilled.

[ilsaloving]

While yes it is sad that this happened to the family, I think this is a fantastic example of what happens when right wing capitalist values meet reality. They are so obsessed over the evils of socialism, how forcing people to pay for services 'used by other people' is anathema.

So here is what happens when you don't feel you should have to put money into the collective pool for social services. Thanks but no thanks. If some relatively small taxes is the price I have to pay for this kind of peace of mind, I'll take it every time.

Re:Sad, but I can't help but be thrilled.

[cplusplus]

It has been said many times, and is so appropriate here - "Taxes buy civilization"

Re:Why not just bill him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent hits the nail right on the head.

Seriously...how can you just stand by and watch thousands, possibly a couple million dollars worth of stuff be destroyed? I'm sure the family would have been so thankful that you might even have gotten a tip beyond the $75. I don't want my society ruled by feudalistic terror.

There's a huge difference between this situation and gambling. The House wins your money (no pun intended) when you gamble; society conserves the amount being gambled. No one wins when a house burns down; society permanently loses the hard work that went into the house and all items inside.

Also not analogous to the car insurance. In a car wreck, the deed is already done, and you want magic money that you didn't earn to fix it. The burning house still isn't a done deed until it's ashes.

This is what the teabag future looks like.

[headhot]

If the teabaggers had their way, this is what government would run like.. A government by the people, for the people that can afford it.

Now, what happens when there is a paperwork mistake and the fee had been paid? What if it were a case of arson, and stopping the building from burning would have preserved evidence? What does the insurance company do? Raise rates for every one in that town?

Socialism in Nowhere, Tennessee

[drumcat]

To every Tea Party type that thinks it was a shame, get over it. Fire protection is socialism. I WANT SOCIALISM. Let's fund these damned things, huh? Pay a fucking tax at the STATE level. And if they can't pay, let the STATE deal with it. Fire zones should be based on a municipality, but should be funded in the same way STATE POLICE are funded.

Re:Socialism in Nowhere, Tennessee

[goldspider]

Apparently the folks in this municipality disagree with you (as is their right), and opted for an insurance model.

The system worked as intended. If you don't like how it works, don't f-ing live there!

Why is that surprising?

[BergZ]

If libertarians had their way and fire departments were privatized across the country:
Incidents like this would become an almost daily affair.

Irresponsible on both parts

[tick_and_bash]

The article states that he "forgot". (In quotes.) There's no clarification that he had paid prior years on time or if he had been "forgetting" for several years. If anyone had been injured as a result of them not showing up over a $75 annual fee, then there would be a lot more shit hitting the fan.

Since his insurance is paying part of the loss, I'm assuming their stance on this will be very important. If they hold the homeowner to a higher standard because of his failure to pay, then he's lost everything and won't receive much compensation. If the insurance takes the view that this was a preventable loss and that the fire department should've shown up regardless, then this could be interesting.

The fire department should've shown up in either case. Worst case, he honestly forgot to pay this year and they'll get $75 out of showing up. If he's "forgotten" to pay the past few years, then they'll have grounds for a lien on this property until he can reimburse them for their costs.

If the neighbour's sustained any damage, I wonder who they'll go after. The broke guy who just lost everything, or the fire department?

How is this Tech Related???

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I seen this on Digg where all kinds of stories get covered. But Slashdot? really?

This is not about economics, or politics.

[b00le]

The responses here on /. point up what is wrong - not with Tennessee, or the USA, or libertarianism, but with human beings as a species. When you let a principle, right or wrong, trump your humanity you have lost the plot. It seems for most of the people on this site you can stand by and let your neighbour's house burn down because it makes sense politically, or economically, or administratively. And if his children had been in the house? The principle doesn't change. Never mind that libertarianism is just an infantile fantasy anyway. What kind of fireman will stand there and let this happen? A cowardly one. I don't care who pays, or how it's organized, or what the policy is: if your ideas are more important than your humanity, your ideas aren't worth shit.

Fine til there's a paperwork snafu

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fine system, until that magical time that WILL someday occur, when there's a fire call and the address and/or the name doesn't match up just right and they CHOOSE to let someone's house burn down, that actually DID pay. Then the fecal matter will strike the air flow enabling device.

No, the homeowner allowed 4 pets to die.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the homeowner allowed 4 pets to die by leaving them in a house that wasn't protected from fires. These people live in an area where voters apparently think fire protection is completely unnecessary, or they would have taxed for it like sane people. Some city in the next state over was willing to allow people who live out there to pay an insurance fee in order to get fire protection from them if it was needed. This homeowner said no, he didn't think $75 dollars a year was worth paying in order to protect his property and animals from a fire.

Firefighting is dangerous, and you need to support a fire department by paying for it-- probably with taxes. Honestly, they're doing these people a huge favor by being willing to go in after people, when the voters of the state of Tennessee and the county they live in apparently think rescuing people from burning buildings is not a necessary social service.

To mangle an old quote

[anyGould]

There's no conservatives in a house fire.

Guy has no problem "forgetting" to pay his fees until it's his arse on the line. Then suddenly it's time for the government to bail him out.

What about the insurance company?

[wanax]

A point which I haven't seen mentioned: This guy (according to the Olbermann interview) HAS homeowners insurance, including fire coverage! Why wasn't the insurance company allowed to pay the fee for him? (or, if they were why didn't they?) And why wasn't the insurance company allowed to separately contract with the city fire department to provide fire-fighting services for their policy holders (this is the way firefighting was funded in most of the US prior to the civil war)?

Setting up a situation where somebody (intentionally or inadvertently) not paying a $75 fee can cause tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and fees for themselves, their neighbors (at least one had direct property damage) and the other policy holders of the insurance company is stupid and unjustifiable regardless of moral, political or economic perspective.

Libertarianism Gone Wrong

[njfuzzy]

To me, this is the perfect argument to make me question my often-Libertarian leanings. The reason we have governments is so that, as a society, we don't have to worry about situations like this. So we can extinguish the fire, without wondering if it was paid for. So we can protect the neighborhood (or surrounding land). Fire departments are in place to provide a necessary protection for society as a whole, and that system breaks down if one person can opt out-- or even be put in a position to have to choose whether to opt out. Fire departments should not have a fee associated, they should be covered by a tax.

Your figure is too low

[fantomas]

You've come up with some figures that cover the costs of the firefighters going out for 3 hours to fight a fire. You're forgetting the other overheads involved, the cost of running a business has to cover more than just the actions of the moment.

- Training of firefighters
- Equipment for firefighters (wear and tear on clothes and kit, need to be replaced every year or so)
- Fire station for housing the fire truck and firefighters kit
- Running costs of fire station (water, electric, ongoing maintenance, etc)
- Admin overhead to pay for the billing and manage the fire department staff

The cost of fighting a fire has to also in some part cover the cost of when there is a fire truck sitting in a fire station not fighting a fire, say the next 24 hours before the next fire, not just the 3 hours when it's out on a call.

As others have noted the USA is so screwed up by a legal culture then you probably have to factor in the "lawyer on year round standby" charges to cover the fact that some of the people who are charged then try to get out of paying the charges and have to be taken through the courts to recoup the money.

Plus the fire dept. will need to pay for its own insurance to cover itself in the shortfalls that occur when they turn out to fight a fire and bill the residents and the residents don't or can't pay and the fire dept. needs to be covered for the $20,000 or so lost.

My guess is that a man who refused to pay 6.25 / month before the event would be unlikely to freely hand over 10,000 or more after the event even if he claims he will. He'd probably claim he was forced to sign under duress as his house was burning down and would try to hire a lawyer and try to get out of paying. I can understand the fire chief making the decision that as nobody was at risk of injury or death, and the homeowner had decided not to pay for the fire protection service, his first priority was to protect the lives of his own firefighters and stand off and just check the fire didn't develop further but rather guard it and let it burnt out.