Echoing KSig RC: the "pay it all" in this scenario is the loss of property and belongings.

And what if one of the firefighters had died while putting out the fire? Would the family be liable to be sued for his family's loss?

Well then, I guess it's lucky that this is just a message board, all of these are hypothetical situations, and I really couldn't care less what you think. :rolleyes:

I was suggesting that could be part of the overall contract (the same one that dictates $75 gets you services). The couple in question begged the firefighters to save their house and they would pay whatever fee it took. That's what made me think of it. No, that's not the best case scenario, there are lots of reasons it wouldn't work, and I'm sure there are loads of better options, possibly including what happened in reality. But, given the fact that a homeless couple who has lost all their possessions is not the best case scenario either, that's the idea I would contribute.

As for the whole "if a fireman died" situation, I don't think the family would be liable for that. For one, just the way people keep saying "you know what could happen if you don't pay your fee," I'm sure people would say "you risk your life with every call, that's part of the job." I think that's pretty callous, but people would go there. Moreover, if it was the department who overrode the "don't save the house" order, then I would think the liability would swing toward them. But I don't know a lot about legal matters and liability, so I'm really not sure.

The world I want to live in does not respond to someone experiencing such tragedy with "he got what he deserved.'

Would you feel different if someone's car was totaled, but s/he refused to get insurance?

I was talking to someone about this the other day. He felt bad, but put it this way...
In the suburbs and city where it is of public interest and safety to have fire services included, it is part of taxes. In a rural area, you pay for this seperately, just like a tax. If you don't pay your taxes, you can lose your house (without a fire). How is this any different? I thought it was a good point.

I had this incredibly intelligent and well thought out <grin> post written last night and put it in the wrong thread. I deleted it without copying it first so I will try to re-create it.

In my own perception of local government, I think that their primary purposes are providing: 1) law enforcement, 2) fire protection/paramedics, 3) waste disposal, 4) maintenance of roads and 5) run elections. I see these items as the essential services needed to maintain a municipality for the good of the community as a whole in a democratic society whether performed by actual government workers or a privatized company hired by the municipality. Other things that they do such as maintain libraries, parks and recs programs, zoning/building codes all seem to be less important functions. When paying my taxes, those first five are the things I expect to get for my money. If they aren't doing these things, what in the world are they doing?

I simply cannot comprehend why this would not be a fee built into the taxes and then paid to the other city/township/municipality as a whole for the good of the entire community. When we see acres and acres destroyed by wild fires every year, it is in everybody's best interest to have fire protection built into basic taxes. Do we really want to rely on each individual paying a subscription fee to prevent massive damage from a wild fire? I just cannot understand that mentality. If it only affected that one person, fine. A fire does not just affect one person/household if allowed to spread.

I do think they did the right thing given the system in place. I think the system in place is severely flawed.

The firefighters were basically contracting with the rural city. In essence, it was "We're not supposed to be covering your area, but we've decided to add to our workload and help you out. If you want us to help, pay this fee."

IIRC, this was implemented in 1990, so it isn't like this was something new. They know the risk that comes along with not paying for this insurance (just like we know the risk that comes along with not paying for car, life, home, vision, dental, etc insurance) and they chose to ignore it.

It sucks that they lost everything, but them's the breaks. I can guarantee that if anyone "lost it all" from any of those other types of insurance, no one would bat an eye.

Yes, I understand that and support their actions, given the circumstances. My point is that the circumstances are poor. We have had communities that made the decision to eliminate some services and other municipalities have taken over the actual service, but the original municipality collected the taxes and then paid the other city for the service. This seems like a better way to handle it to me.

FWIW - In an interview the owner said everything was insured.

I generally feel that compassion is an important part of life - it isn't an important part of running a business, though. For better or worse, the fire department is run as such by contractual obligation.

It's not that he got what he "deserved" - he did, though, get what he bargained for (literally). If he was misinformed or not at all informed as to what would happen, then that's really unfortunate and the county should take a hard look at the way it handles its business. However, it really seems he disregarded all of the information he had - just as we can say "A person's home and possessions shouldn't be compromised over a mere $75" that can be flipped on the homeowner, too, who thought that $75 apparently wasn't important to pay.

That's fine - I think that came off more harsh than I anticipated, but it's not like you're required to listen to what I have to say.

However, this is more what I meant:

I see what you're saying - my point was just that the way that it could work and the way that it did work on-site can't really be compared. I'm sure there's a better solution, in a holistic sense, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to judge or determine the "best" scenario. It's the difference between (as you said) a hypothetical and what actually happened.

I think we can say, however, that once the $75 decision had been made in the past, changing the contract situation "on the fly" (while a fire is raging) would be very difficult at best, and might even be untenable/impossible.

If the community/county as a whole decides it would be better to make this decision for each person (and require paying for outside fire protection), that's certainly their right to do so. However, there is certainly something to be said for allowing people to make their own purchase/protection/safety decisions in low-risk scenarios (that generally don't affect the community as a whole) - and there isn't a 100%-sure method to determine where to draw the line. It's going to definitely be an "agree-to-disagree" scenario at that point.

No, I wouldn't feel different. Might I feel slightly differently if they were driving drunk and totaled their car? Maybe, but not entirely.

No one 'deserves' tragedy. People are responsible for their actions, but I do not believe that people 'get what's coming to them' or that it's something to hope for.

I think you are reading into peoples comments wrong. No one is reveling in the fact that he lost his house and property. Like others have said, he made a gamble and lost.

No where did I say 'revel.'