Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[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?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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.

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 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.

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.