Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There's a fundamental difference, however, in two key areas:

1 - Police presence (and hospitals/EMTs, to a separate/different extent) can't easily separate out one citizen's issues from another's. Restated: basically every police issue is a public issue; many rural fire issues are not a public issue.

2 - There are significant changes in the "fundamentals" when you fundamentally alter the concentration of people. Delhi deals with different issues than Denison, IA right?



It might be. You don't know that, though. This person may have booked the $$ saved and can afford to rebuild. You're essentially arguing that a correct assessment of a cost/benefit analysis is the wrong decision - you realize that, right?



None of these points are persuasive - minors? Really?



No, it's not - this is the same as spending the kids' food money on Powerball. There's no law against that, right?



It's not a crazy concept, and in a massive number of situations, I agree it's the correct thing to do. That doesn't mean it's correct across the board, right?

Unless you think popularity of an idea equates to utility?

I think that allowing someone's house to burn down for the lack of a 75 dollar fee is a stupid one. I think allowing people to "opt in" to fire department services is a stupid one. And I think that lives don't come down to cost/benefit analysis answers (which ignores the fact that the guy didn't actually make the "right" analysis nor did his local government.)

Not sure how every police issue is a public issue yet essentially no fire department issue in a rural setting is.


And yes, it's illegal to starve your children. Stupid comparison.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Note that it wasn't the neighbor's house, but their field.

[KSUViolet06]

How do these subscription fees work? Is that a rural area thing?

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

How do these subscription fees work? Is that a rural area thing?

No, it's not just rural - the southside of Savannah's fire department is run by a private company and operates this way.

[SWTXBelle]

When I lived in the middle of nowhere, TN, we had a tractor catch fire. The nearby town's firefighters came out - and then sent a bill. Our homeowner's insurance paid for it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

When I lived in the middle of nowhere, TN, we had a tractor catch fire. The nearby town's firefighters came out - and then sent a bill. Our homeowner's insurance paid for it.

Honestly that's the only way I could see something like this working. They provide the service anyway and then bill for the cost. I mean in this case the firefighters showed up anyway... I don't get it at all.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Honestly that's the only way I could see something like this working. They provide the service anyway and then bill for the cost. I mean in this case the firefighters showed up anyway... I don't get it at all.

The firefighters showed up in case the next house, which did pay the fee, caught fire. Will I agree in theory, nobody would pay the fee if they only had to after the fire was already put out. And as for your earlier point, who would the taxes go to?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

The firefighters showed up in case the next house, which did pay the fee, caught fire. Will I agree in theory, nobody would pay the fee if they only had to after the fire was already put out. And as for your earlier point, who would the taxes go to?

Someone previously mentioned they paid taxes to the city/county and then that entity paid the appropriate municipal provider of services.

Thus the county contracts with the city to provide service to the outlying community. It's pretty common with other services and not crazy in the case of fire fighting services.
And I'd expect a post-service bill to cost more than the pre-service fee, if it were arranged that way. So, now instead of providing a service at a cost you have a homeless couple. How is THAT a better outcome in any way shape or form?

[DubaiSis]

These are the same people who complain about paying taxes because we don't need public schools, and all the cops do is give me speeding tickets, and we don't need any new roads; the ones we have right now are just fine.

They lived in a rural area outside of the coverage area, were offered the service at a ridiculously cheap amount and didn't pay. They even said they thought in case of an emergency they'd be able to get away with it. They deserve everything they got. It's too bad the neighbor had difficulty, and they should have to pay the neighbor's damages as well. But the firemen did nothing wrong and hopefully this will serve as a lesson that the cost of 3 cases of beer per year might be better used for the health and safety of your family and your property.

[honeychile]

This is very intriguing to me, as my sil & I had an argument about this very thing about a month ago. She said that the firemen have to put out a fire, whether or not you pay them. In my mother's and my borough, you make a "donation" of $50 a year to the fire department, and she doesn't think we should pay the $50 on my mother's house. I have many friends & family members who are or have been firemen. The amount of training that they do is incredible! Frankly, I don't know how they do it, especially when there's a death.

If nothing ever happens, it's worth $50 to know that the firemen would be there, should something happen. I do feel very sorry about the pets that died, though.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Ditto this.

Also, if the firefighters had gone ahead and put out the house fire how many people would pay the $75 for the next year? The ability to assist anyone at anytime would be compromised.

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

In theory this sounds like a good idea and one that could have been implemented by the fire department. In practice there is absolute no guarantee that the family would pay the bill. We don't know why they didn't pay the original $75. It could have been because they didn't have the money, they didn't prioritze the money, or they felt that they should be taken care of without having to pay the fee. Those same reasons could be used against paying a much, much steeper bill sent after the fact.

Admittedly I am looking through my own prism of being in healthcare for 15 years and dealing with people who use all of the above to keep from paying their bills. Yes, that makes me a bit jaded and yes, that saddens me. However, it has also exposed me to a reasonably-sized segment of the population that just doesn't pay bills and has absolutely no qualms about it.

I am guessing it was well known in those parts that no subscription fee = no services. At least it is crystal clear in my area. Crystal clear. I find it very hard to believe that the family didn't know that they were taking a chance by not subscribing to the fire service, which was optional.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

Under what obligation would the homeowner have to repay the fire department?

Now you're requiring the firefighters to get a binding legal consent that the dude will pay whatever it costs to put out the fire, in addition to whatever else is going on? Seriously.

Also, why not just allow them to gamble, oh, in the way it currently allows? You pay the $75 or gamble the fire?

I think you're not even close to how this would (or should) really work.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

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

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

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?