I understand completely - Both sides.
He was willing to pay the fee because his house was on fire. If they allowed this, the only people who would pay would be the people with houses on fire. It costs far more than $75 for firefighters to respond to a fire.
This would be the same as me driving my car without insurance and then offering to pay for coverage only after I am in an accident. It does not work like that.
When I owned a home in a flood plane, I was REQUIRED to carry flood insurance. How is it that his mortgage company did not include this in his fees.
On the other side, If the fire fighters had to choose between responding to his house and a house on the list (of people who paid for coverage) and they responded to the other house, I don't believe that there would have been an issue. However since the other call came in for the house next to his, which put them there, he was upset that they wouldn't help him. Now people blame the firefighters.
How is this different than my college roommate and his girlfriend on spring break. He had great insurance and she had none. At the scene of the accident, He was transported to the nearest hospital, while she waited for the same ambulance to come back and transport her to a county hospital an hour away. He was treated and released and got to her hospital before she was ever seen by a doctor. Neither one had life threatening injuries, but there was a definite difference in service. Free vs. paid. People got upset, but it is a business. If nobody pays the fee, there is not enough money for the fire department and everyone looses. A sign used to hang on the wall where I worked. "You can have it done fast, cheap, or right. Pick 2." If you want a good fire department, police department, hospital, etc. with fast response times, it costs money. If you don't care how fast the services is or how good it is, then you can save money. Simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand completely - Both sides. He was willing to pay the fee because his house was on fire. If they allowed this, the only people who would pay would be the people with houses on fire. It costs far more than $75 for firefighters to respond to a fire. This would be the same as me driving my car without insurance and then offering to pay for coverage only after I am in an accident. It does not work like that. When I owned a home in a flood plane, I was REQUIRED to carry flood insurance. How is it that his mortgage company did not include this in his fees. On the other side, If the fire fighters had to choose between responding to his house and a house on the list (of people who paid for coverage) and they responded to the other house, I don't believe that there would have been an issue. However since the other call came in for the house next to his, which put them there, he was upset that they wouldn't help him. Now people blame the firefighters. How is this different than my college roommate and his girlfriend on spring break. He had great insurance and she had none. At the scene of the accident, He was transported to the nearest hospital, while she waited for the same ambulance to come back and transport her to a county hospital an hour away. He was treated and released and got to her hospital before she was ever seen by a doctor. Neither one had life threatening injuries, but there was a definite difference in service. Free vs. paid. People got upset, but it is a business. If nobody pays the fee, there is not enough money for the fire department and everyone looses. A sign used to hang on the wall where I worked. "You can have it done fast, cheap, or right. Pick 2." If you want a good fire department, police department, hospital, etc. with fast response times, it costs money. If you don't care how fast the services is or how good it is, then you can save money. Simple.