Firefighters Respond ...watch house burn ...fee not paid

[Selene]

Well folks:

I have my own opinion on this, I would be extremely interested in how this forum responds.

"News of a home burning down in rural Obion County, Tennessee because the neighboring fire department refused assistance to the owners who hadn't paid the $75 fee for the coverage, has spread like, well, wildfire.

The incident has caused a raging debate, and has even left one talking head warning this is an example of "Tea Party" America. (See the original story and video from the scene.)"

http://www.theblaze....-party-america/

"Oy, this is bad for libertarians,” wrote Danial Foster on National Review’s blog “The Corner.” He added: I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?"

Adam

Edited October 5, 2010 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Well folks:

I have my own opinion on this, I would be extremely interested in how this forum responds.

"News of a home burning down in rural Obion County, Tennessee because the neighboring fire department refused assistance to the owners who hadn't paid the $75 fee for the coverage, has spread like, well, wildfire.

The incident has caused a raging debate, and has even left one talking head warning this is an example of "Tea Party" America. (See the original story and video from the scene.)"

http://www.theblaze....-party-america/

Adam

75 bucks is pretty cheap insurance. Stupid homeowner. If he has homeowner's insurance why didn't the insurance company demand the 75 be paid or pay it itself out of the premium? The rural homeowners could have formed a cooperative firefighting system. Or ambulance. Why does that town have a public fire department anyway? A private department could have arrived on the scene and had the homeowner sign a contract on the spot--an automatic lien on the property until the bill was paid--and made money putting out that fire. Sin loi. I'm not in the least sympathetic, but it seems no one was hurt so I'm glad of that.

--Brant

everything costs something, especially stupidity, so grow up and take responsibility

Edited October 5, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Mikee]

If they were standing there with all the equipment to put out the fire and did nothing I think they are culpable. Watching value go up in smoke when you can do something about it is perverse. Put a lien on the house to collect your fee if you have to but do your job.

[anthony]

If they were standing there with all the equipment to put out the fire and did nothing I think they are culpable. Watching value go up in smoke when you can do something about it is perverse. Put a lien on the house to collect your fee if you have to but do your job.

For sure. Was there an element of tit-for-tat by the firemen? Seems so.

Privatization of services does not have to come at the cost of professional pride, does it?

[sbeaulieu]

Quote - "The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late."

You can look at this several ways. First, he offered. Anyone with compassion would have put the fire out. Are they obligated? By no means. But personally, I couldn't stand by and watch a man's house and possible livelyhood (if he worked out of home) go up in flames. Second, was the homeowner at fault by not paying the annual fee? You bet. He probably never figured on his home going up in flames, so why pay for services he didn't feel were likely? Oops on him. Lastly, as pointed out, the fire dept arrived on scene. Mobilizing them costs money. Then it's a matter of pointing and shooting water. As chief, I would have made the call to put the fire out as a responsible citizen to ensure the fire didn't have a chance to spread and cause further damage (Free Republic Article). I wouldn't wait it out to see if it did, as was the case. Add to that that an oath is usually undertaken (mentioned in one of the responses), and now the fire dept will get viewed as the bad guys (which they're not). It's an impact on that profession as public servants.

That'd be akin to the military deploying to a hot zone, and once there, we sit back and watch the mayhem unfold without intervening. Unless, of course, it spills over to another country that's "paid" their dues. Different ends of the spectrum, I know.

~ Shane

Edited October 5, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[BaalChatzaf]

Quote - "The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late."

You can look at this several ways. First, he offered. Anyone with compassion would have put the fire out. Are they obligated? By no means. But personally, I couldn't stand by and watch a man's house and possible livelyhood (if he worked out of home) go up in flames. Second, was the homeowner at fault by not paying the annual fee? You bet. He probably never figured on his home going up in flames, so why pay for services he didn't feel were likely? Oops on him. Lastly, as pointed out, the fire dept arrived on scene. Mobilizing them costs money. Then it's a matter of pointing and shooting water. As chief, I would have made the call to put the fire out as a responsible citizen to ensure the fire didn't have a chance to spread and cause further damage (Free Republic Article). I wouldn't wait it out to see if it did, as was the case. Add to that that an oath is usually undertaken (mentioned in one of the responses), and now the fire dept will get viewed as the bad guys (which they're not). It's an impact on that profession as public servants.

That'd be akin to the military deploying to a hot zone, and once there, we sit back and watch the mayhem unfold without intervening. Unless, of course, it spills over to another country that's "paid" their dues. Different ends of the spectrum, I know.

~ Shane

Here is what should have happened. The man should have signed a promisory note to cover the cost of putting out the fire and the fire department crew should have serviced his house. The cost of putting out the fire would be much hire than the seventy five dollar subscription fee which is really like an insurance premium. Why is that. Many people would pay the seventy five dollars but only a few people would need the service. The man chose not to pay the premium, so if he wants the service he should pay the full freight.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[DavidMcK]

Right, it would be like waiting till you have a car accident before you pay your monthly premium.

[Selene]

Right, it would be like waiting till you have a car accident before you pay your monthly premium.

David:

Precisely the comparison that is made by the private market insurer when O'Biwan the incredibly marxist, shrinking President when he ineptly puffs up his weak chest under his weak chin and says, "Now, the insurance companies have to insure you, even with a pre-existing condition!"

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

The man chose not to pay the premium, so if he wants the service he should pay the full freight.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly. That would have cost less than the full loss of his home and belongings. And being there, I would have done the service either way (personally). What a hard lesson to learn in today's skewed society.

~ Shane

[algernonsidney]

Back in 1999, I did warranty service for a very good computer company. We did custom builds and sold them to customers all over Ohio. That company went out of business in early 2000, partially because of our generous warranty policy. We would go on-site anywhere in the state of Ohio.

One day, I went about 125 miles to a very poor school district. I don't specifically remember what the problem was. The computer was covered under our warranty, which included me going there for free. Of course, the warranty only covered hardware problems. That is, the warranty only covered things that we could return to the manufacturer.

Once I got there, it turned out to be some type of software issue. I told the principal of the school that it would now be a billable call, since it was a software problem. The principal told me to do anything, as he said that they could not justify any such expenses. For a billable call, he would be paying for one hour of service plus travel. I think it would have been about $200.

Now, I had already driven about 125 miles and would have to drive back. We weren't going to get paid for that either way. My company also lost me for most of the day. They wouldn't get that back. Either way, my employer was going to pay for me to go out there and come back.

Naturally, I figured I should do something to fix the problem. I lied and told my company that the hard drive was bad. I told the principal that I would send the hard drive "back to Seagate." This allowed me to fix the problem and reload the software as it was when they got the computer. The customer's problem was fixed--they had a working computer.

Was anything actually wrong with the hard drive? Probably not. I never heard anything afterward.

The bottom line was that I had already made the trip there. I figured I might as well do something. My company lost nothing by my action.

My feelings in this case: put out the fire and then bill him. If he doesn't pay the bill, put a lien on the house.

Finally, I would think that an insurance company would require some type of proof that he had paid this fee. Maybe even insurance companies would pay this fee for their customers?

I was glad to get out of warranty service. I was tired of trying to manipulate free service calls into billable ones. If the customer had a problem, I felt morally obligated to fix it.

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, . . . . .

1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer.

2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire).

Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance.

Bill P

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, . . . . .

1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer.

2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire).

Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance.

Bill P

[kiaer.ts]

It strikes me as short-sighted that the firefighters didn't have a positive policy for handling such cases. I will not be surprised to hear that the homeowner has decided to sue. He could, for instance, argue that the fact that they dispatched and only then held back prevented some other response from being made.

[sbeaulieu]

Now, I had already driven about 125 miles and would have to drive back. We weren't going to get paid for that either way. My company also lost me for most of the day. They wouldn't get that back. Either way, my employer was going to pay for me to go out there and come back.

This brings up another point...why did they dispatch the fire dept at all? Wouldn't they have checked the address to see if it was covered? Certainly, there is a database that lists residences that are current. Seems to me, in reading the article, they stood by and watched as the fire went onto property by a covered residence. So, they were on standby to see where it would spread?

~ Shane

[Selene]

Now, I had already driven about 125 miles and would have to drive back. We weren't going to get paid for that either way. My company also lost me for most of the day. They wouldn't get that back. Either way, my employer was going to pay for me to go out there and come back.

This brings up another point...why did they dispatch the fire dept at all? Wouldn't they have checked the address to see if it was covered? Certainly, there is a database that lists residences that are current. Seems to me, in reading the article, they stood by and watched as the fire went onto property by a covered residence. So, they were on standby to see where it would spread?

~ Shane

Shane:

When you listen to the video, there is a reference to a call from a "covered" adjoining neighbor which is what brought them out. The non-member and his family had made "several", possibly three (3) 911 calls which were not responded too.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Presumably if someone were trapped inside the fire fighters would have tried to save their lives. Dogs and goldfish, probably not.

[Selene]

Presumably if someone were trapped inside the fire fighters would have tried to save their lives. Dogs and goldfish, probably not.

ND:

Ahh! I was wondering who the first to raise that issue would be.

Can you imagine the PETA and the pet wacko fringe reaction if a kitten had died!

Adam

[rodney203]

More food for thought:

I'm assuming that one underlying theme of the topic here is something like: "hey, this happened partly because the local fire fighting service wasn't public".

I'm curious as to why Adam chose the "ethics" section for this topic and not the "politics" section. Not criticizing, just curious, that's all. The primary ethical consideration in the story seems to be "why didn't the homeowner purchase the fire insurance for himself?" Maybe he had his reasons, but that does seem to be the ethical question. (recall what "ethics" refers to, in our system)

Our theory certainly holds that a fire fighting service should have always been private. It is good and proper to have our theory, and we believe it to be correct; but, as in some other issues, actual implementation of the theory can be complex, can it not? Are not rural volunteer fire departments subsidized?,,,,,,, which would mean that we actually have little experience with private fire fighting. It is very difficult to predict exactly how private fire fighting would work out, and also nearly impossible to say how things would be different today if there had NEVER been public fire fighting. Modern brick and drywall construction makes homes quite fire resistant. Homes could be made almost fire proof too!!

Here is another point that was not brought up: under an ongoing system of private fire fighting, would it not be reasonable to expect that the fire companies would have an "insurance program" and a published charge for owners happy to self insure? Recall the fundamentals of insurance: The insurance company will probably make money off of you. Insurance is for risks you are NOT willing to take yourself.

Under a working private fire fighting system, in a sizable city, the $75 yearly fee sounds kind of high though. I would hope that it is possible to provide the service for less than that in a decent city.

Edited October 6, 2010 by rodney203

[sbeaulieu]

Shane:

When you listen to the video, there is a reference to a call from a "covered" adjoining neighbor which is what brought them out. The non-member and his family had made "several", possibly three (3) 911 calls which were not responded too.

Adam

Well, that answers my question ;). I can't see video links at work...bleh!

~ Shane

[sbeaulieu]

Under a working private fire fighting system, in a sizable city, the $75 yearly fee sounds kind of high though. I would hope that it is possible to provide the service for less than that in a decent city.

I'd gladly pay that, and as much as twice that to secure my house from potential destruction. I'm sure there's plenty of overhead that we don't see (salaries, equipment, recurring maintenance on trucks, etc.) that merits that sort of fee.

~ Shane

[kiaer.ts]

Under a working private fire fighting system, in a sizable city, the $75 yearly fee sounds kind of high though. I would hope that it is possible to provide the service for less than that in a decent city.

I'd gladly pay that, and as much as twice that to secure my house from potential destruction. I'm sure there's plenty of overhead that we don't see (salaries, equipment, recurring maintenance on trucks, etc.) that merits that sort of fee.

~ Shane

This is a service, not insurance. They fight fires. They don't pay you if your house is damaged. A business would benefit by having both a presubscription and an on-call alternative for its customers.

The fact that they did not have an alternative for customers who did not pay ahead of time strikes me as bizarrely punitive.

The attitude is much more what you would expect from a bureaucrat than a businessman

As for whether this is an issue of ethics or politics, force and law are not involved. It is not a political issue unless you take the statist position for granted.

[Selene]

Under a working private fire fighting system, in a sizable city, the $75 yearly fee sounds kind of high though. I would hope that it is possible to provide the service for less than that in a decent city.

I'd gladly pay that, and as much as twice that to secure my house from potential destruction. I'm sure there's plenty of overhead that we don't see (salaries, equipment, recurring maintenance on trucks, etc.) that merits that sort of fee.

~ Shane

NY City Fire Department - Fiscal 2008 appropriations = $383, 200, 000.00

[sbeaulieu]

This is a service, not insurance. They fight fires. They don't pay you if your house is damaged.

Apologies, as I inferred paying for the service vs. insurance. Of course, you'd have to have insurance to cover damages.

~ Shane

[sbeaulieu]

NY City Fire Department - Fiscal 2008 appropriations = $383, 200, 000.00

NY City Population in 2008, approx 8.2 million. That breaks down to just over $30. Probably less given that the number of residences could average out to 1/2 to 1/4 of the population. So maybe even closer to $15-$20. That's well worth the bill.

I'm assuming $383M covers all stations?

~ Shane

[kiaer.ts]

This is a service, not insurance. They fight fires. They don't pay you if your house is damaged.

Apologies, as I inferred paying for the service vs. insurance. Of course, you'd have to have insurance to cover damages.

~ Shane

That's just a side issue though. There is something weirdly statist and authoritarian going on here. As I said before, a business would benefit by having both a presubscription and an on-call alternative for its customers. The fact that they did not have an alternative for customers who did not pay ahead of time strikes me as bizarrely punitive. The attitude is much more what you would expect from a bureaucrat than a businessman.

For instance, does this fire agency have a monopoly?

Can anyone who wants to get into the business?

What is the motivation of a business to dispatch and not act?

This is not a free market solution, it is a statist organization given the privileges of a private actor - the worst of both systems.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Ted Keer