Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.'

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No where did I say 'revel.'

I don't think anybody was "hoping" for a negative outcome for the family either, though - a fire, even an insured one, is a harrowing experience and nothing to wish upon anybody.

Acknowledging that the guy made a decision whether or not to pay a fee and thus gain fire protection isn't the same as hoping for the worst-case scenario. Similarly, feeling that it is a good thing to allow people to choose for themselves whether to purchase fire coverage isn't some sort of cynical or inhumane notion. Quite the opposite, in fact - I'd argue it's a sign of having faith that the average dude or dudette can make a rational decision in his/her own best interest and acknowledging that person's ideal risk tolerance. That's pretty positive, I think.

Does it always work out? Of course not, but that's life.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't think anybody was "hoping" for a negative outcome for the family either, though - a fire, even an insured one, is a harrowing experience and nothing to wish upon anybody.

Acknowledging that the guy made a decision whether or not to pay a fee and thus gain fire protection isn't the same as hoping for the worst-case scenario. Similarly, feeling that it is a good thing to allow people to choose for themselves whether to purchase fire coverage isn't some sort of cynical or inhumane notion. Quite the opposite, in fact - I'd argue it's a sign of having faith that the average dude or dudette can make a rational decision in his/her own best interest and acknowledging that person's ideal risk tolerance. That's pretty positive, I think.

Does it always work out? Of course not, but that's life.

Sorry, you won't convince me that there's any 'best interest' or 'risk tolerance' in not purchasing fire department coverage. This wasn't insurance. That's neither cynical nor an optimistic view on life. It's just a bad idea.

It's pretty much the worst place to push a 'small government' argument in my opinion. And no, no one's been successful at influencing it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Sorry, you won't convince me that there's any 'best interest' or 'risk tolerance' in not purchasing fire department coverage. This wasn't insurance. That's neither cynical nor an optimistic view on life. It's just a bad idea.

This is really just a cost/benefit issue at heart - obviously we have different ideas of how to balance it, but "bad idea" is kind of silly. Amenities of city life can be outrageously expensive and difficult to provide in the country - it would be a bad idea to say, across the board, that no amount of cost is too high for something like a rural fire department.

It's pretty much the worst place to push a 'small government' argument in my opinion. And no, no one's been successful at influencing it.

Ha, fair enough. I'm not pushing a general "small government" agenda here - I think most "small government" proponents are really just running a NIMBY argument under the guise of something vaguely constitutional - but rather, in this specific instance, this seems like a fine time to allow an individual a (very simple) choice.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is really just a cost/benefit issue at heart - obviously we have different ideas of how to balance it, but "bad idea" is kind of silly. Amenities of city life can be outrageously expensive and difficult to provide in the country - it would be a bad idea to say, across the board, that no amount of cost is too high for something like a rural fire department.

Which is why I said if it were $2k we could talk but that if $75 provides coverage then it's a lose-lose situation for all involved with no benefit to not providing the services via a mutual agreement between the county/municipality and paying for it via taxes.

If it were $2k either the person would be living on a mountain cliff accessible only by goat or the municipality would be charging unreasonable prices and the county should find a different solution. Not providing fire department coverage is still not the right answer.

Additional 'what ifs' could be thrown in here, but the fact of the matter is, the guy lives in an area accessible by the fire dept and well within their ability to provide such services otherwise they wouldn't be offered. Said services are provided at a 'cost' of $75. In that situation the guy should have bought the services. However, I still find no reason on the county, city or individual's part that they should be optional in the first place.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's pretty much the worst place to push a 'small government' argument in my opinion. And no, no one's been successful at influencing it.

I haven't seen anyone push a "small government" opinion.

I could, if you want because your arguments have been silly so far.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I haven't seen anyone push a "small government" opinion.

I could, if you want because your arguments have been silly so far.

You can tell how terribly sorry I am not to meet your seal of approval by the look on my face right now. I'm sure.

Also, learn to read.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, there's that whole thing about small government, reducing the consumer burden by eliminating non-essential or overly-cost-ineffective services, potential issues with what are essentially government-run insurance programs, etc.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I haven't seen anyone push a "small government" opinion.

I could, if you want because your arguments have been silly so far.

There ya go.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

@ the bold: So, if someone makes a bad decision (drunk driving:refusing to get coverage), it makes sense that they'll have to deal with the consequences?

As everyone else has said, I'm not laughing and stroking my cat while sitting in my evil lair. It sucks that these people lost everything. I haven't lost anything in a fire, but I did have a lot of flood damage in a previous dwelling a few years back. I could have called my (car) insurance company and said that I'd pay a renter's insurance premium after the fact, but that's not how it works. I made a decision not to pay a fee and had to suffer the consequences.

The insurance company had the means to pay me for my damages, but that would have been at the expense of those that DO pay. How is that fair to them?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

@ the bold: So, if someone makes a bad decision (drunk driving:refusing to get coverage), it makes sense that they'll have to deal with the consequences?

As everyone else has said, I'm not laughing and stroking my cat while sitting in my evil lair. It sucks that these people lost everything. I haven't lost anything in a fire, but I did have a lot of flood damage in a previous dwelling a few years back. I could have called my (car) insurance company and said that I'd pay a renter's insurance premium after the fact, but that's not how it works. I made a decision not to pay a fee and had to suffer the consequences.

The insurance company had the means to pay me for my damages, but that would have been at the expense of those that DO pay. How is that fair to them?

No shit he has to deal with the consequences. It's the idea of 'deserving' it and the acceptance of the situation that bothers me. This wasn't insurance, this was the fire department. It's considered a 'service' for a reason. I don't object to them paying for it, I object to the presentation of coverage as optional.

The situation never should have happened.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No shit he has to deal with the consequences. It's the idea of 'deserving' it and the acceptance of the situation that bothers me. This wasn't insurance, this was the fire department. It's considered a 'service' for a reason. I don't object to them paying for it, I object to the presentation of coverage as optional.

The situation never should have happened.

It's considered a service for those who pay for it. He knew the consequences of living in the country and was OK with it. That falls on him. The fire department of another city doesn't owe him protection.

ETA: I would agree that it shouldn't have happened if the option to pay had gone into effect, say, earlier this year. I seem to remember reading, though, that this has been in effect since 1990. It's not as if they were blindsided by a mysterious fee. They were aware of the procedure for 20 years and still did nothing.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

It's considered a service for those who pay for it. He knew the consequences of living in the country and was OK with it. That falls on him. The fire department of another city doesn't owe him protection.

ETA: I would agree that it shouldn't have happened if the option to pay had gone into effect, say, earlier this year. I seem to remember reading, though, that this has been in effect since 1990. It's not as if they were blindsided by a mysterious fee. They were aware of the procedure for 20 years and still did nothing.

You're missing my point. It never should have been optional.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're missing my point. It never should have been optional.

Maybe not, but if the residents thought it was bad to have it optional, why wait 20 years to make a fuss?