DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum This is what the TEA Party wants? For-profit-firefighters?

So, I'm not an a-hole? (on paper anyways ).

Quote:

---

Except the insurance company doesn't come by and watch you get into a wreck.

Except the insurance company does not know if you just picked up a policy with another insurance provider.

---

That's rich. The insurance company pays for the damages, not stop them.

Quote:

---

Except the guy was not rolling the dice, he had paid in the past.

---

Previous payment does not prove he wasn't rolling the dice this time. Just like with car insurance, you're only covered if you made the latest payment.

If I wasn't clear, I do think they were wrong for not putting out the fire.

I'm in the same boat as you on what my brand of conservatism is and am baffled by the confirmation bias-supporting, rigid application of reason that's going into this. Demanding payment for emergency services is a rather morally repugnant practice. I don't consider many things entitlements at all, but police/fire departments along with community emergency medical services are necessities all citizens should have. I mean when your mission statement is....

Quote:

---

“The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools.”

---

I don't care if the Cranick's were just outside the South Fulton borders. I would almost also all but guarantee that from paying in years prior they actually received little- if any- of the money that went to paying for the protection from fire. I'm sorry, but how bureaucratic, money-grubbing, and cowardly do you have to be to- as a volunteer or professional firefighter- to idly stand by like a bunch of lookeyloos as a generational family house burns to the ground over a petty billing issue?

Those firefighters are NOT heroes, nor would I even say decent human beings. The majority of professional and volunteer firefighters are disgusted by this. I dreamed for many years of being a firefighter for the chance to help people, be looked up to and drive that big, badass truck, and brave adverse conditions to protect and serve my community and its people. I was an apprentice firefighter for a while in Jackson, MI, a smaller town of about 40,000 residents. The place hardly averages two structure fires a month while 70% of their calls are EMS runs, so I dipped out of it because of its emphasis on medical aspect. But in such small areas, where the firefighters have nothing else to do, and are supposed to be the individuals a community looks up to, there is nothing good about this or the people involved. I don't blame the guy's kid for punching the Fire Chief one bit; he's a bureaucratic scarecrow of a leader in charge of what is an apparent bunch of sheepish cowards...

Who the hell would want to claim being a part of the South Fulton FD right now? I know I sure as hell wouldn't be proud of it at this time. How difficult is it for one or two volunteers to break rank and take some damn action? I know firsthand my reaction would be that. I mean the logic here isn't difficult for anyone of an ounce of moral fiber to filter through...

"Hmm. I can take action and potentially lose my volunteer spot with a fire department that willingly allows houses to smolder slowly to the ground with an entire family's possessions and pets or keep my pawn position while allowing such an atrocity to unfold."

And even more shame goes to the city administrators for allowing such a callous protocol to be implemented. This really is a bad dig for conservative ideology. Some basic services need to be rendered from a government sector; this, along with police departments and emergency medical services, are some of the few that the private sector shouldn't be able to touch with a ten foot pole.

Quote:

---

Except the guy was not rolling the dice, he had paid in the past.

---

Has this been confirmed? I also read that he said no on two different occasions. I'm not buying that one until I see it from a source.

This whole thing stinks. The city residents shouldn't be left holding the bag for others outside their community. I can see situations like this putting their fire department severely in the red. We hear all the time about fire departments having severe cutbacks and they aren't having to fight fires for other people.

Sitting and watching a house burn is not a good solution either. I have no idea what the legalities of all this are but if legal I think the fire department should put out the fire if asked. They then should hit them with the entire bill if they chose not to pay the fee.

So if you have always paid your car insurance on time but then suddenly forget to pay your car insurance so that it lapses and then you get into an accident should they cover you anyway because you "meant to pay it"?

Quote:

---

Demanding payment for emergency services is a rather morally repugnant practice. I don't consider many things entitlements at all, but police/fire departments along with community emergency medical services are necessities all citizens should have.

---

They don't demand payment for it in other areas, they just take it from you.. and anytime they need to take more money for something they threaten to cut those emergency services.. Did you ever notice that? When a County/City is in a bad shortfall they always threaten to cut police/fire/teachers? They never threaten to cut the goof offs that sit at town hall and do nothing.. nope, they always hold those emergency service people over your head first so you won't feel so bad when they raise your taxes to pay for other stuff....

Now allow me to repeat what I said earlier... in most areas you pay for this via taxes, in this place its a direct payment.. there really isn't much of a difference... on this application there is a "if you can't afford the $75 box" and if you check it and can't afford it, they actually have citizens who volunteer to pay more so those with less can have the coverage... it's not repugnant at all, except in this case he forgot to pay.. I'm on board with others who say there should be a way and I would have had a real hard time standing there, even if it was under orders... Seems to me it's sort of like a doctor passing the scene of an accident, you have a responsibility as a professional to help.

But you watch, you watch the goodness of the locals and the American people.. these folks will have more gifts and more money given to them... they will be able to build this house 5 times over with the charity they will receive.. because that's how Americans are... and a lot of that money will come from self-professed "conservatives" ... like me.

Just a couple of my thoughts on the matter:

First off, and the main reason I decided to chime in, good Samaritan laws in no way obligate anyone to help at any time regardless of qualification. They are to protect people (especially un-qualified people) who do their individual best to render aid to a person in need. They can actually create more liability for people who are professionals in that regard.

Second, as a volunteer fire fighter, this is a very tough situation to comprehend. All areas are slightly different in the way they "compensate" fire departments. All my experience is with companies that receive money as an additional assessment of property taxes. The closest personal experience I can relate to this is the way we deal with "mutual aide". There are companies we will not respond to on a mutual aid call for numerous reasons. We are not obligated to serve outside of our district. It is common sense, however, that we should offer assistance to companies that could offer the same assistance to us if need be. One example of this would be the situation with a very near by paid company. We will not respond to any call for mutual aid to them mainly because we have several members of that company in officer positions and the union strong arms them not to respond. Our response lessens the overtime opportunities for union fire fighters.

Third, any money you pay in taxes to you local fire protection is very likely paid back multiple times in your home owners insurance premiums. My small little fire company (actually not that small) provides the highest rating possible for the area we protect. We purchase and maintain equipment to keep that level as high as possible. In return, insurance premiums are less in my district than any of the surrounding areas.

As to standing by while a house burns??? If you read the artical and subsequent further information on the story, the fire company would not respond to the initial call. They were dispatched and arrive later to protect the neighbors house. How long after the fire started did they arrive? None of that information is in any of the text. If my company was called to an out of district incident, we would absolutely not respond for many reasons. Fortunately, I don't know of any areas near me that are not covered by their own fire service. If we were to respond to say, a cat in a tree in a nearby district, we would not go. Even though we have one of two aerial apparatus in the area, if we were to get injured or a bystander were to get injured, we would not be covered. If a response is not specifically listed on the county MAMAS plan, we actually can NOT respond.

Quote:

---

You and the others are hinting that you believe that there are "lesser" human beings out there that you don't want to "pay" for and that you don't want to "pay your share for" = Social Darwinism. That is, the belief that economic standing = the fittest. That those of the better economic standing should serve their own self-interests and all the others "be damned".

---

Let me ask you a question Charlie.. when did we as a species, decide we did not need to evolve any more? And why are we the only species that has reached that conclusion? I assume you are a firm believe in evolution.. isn't it counterintuitive to the whole evolutionary process to spend an inordinate amount of your own resources to keep the weakest members of your species alive and thriving so they can reproduce and create even weaker members of the species?

See, there is no such thing as "social darwinism".. there is only darwinism if you choose to believe it... the strong survive, the weak do not.. if it takes money and resources to survive, then the strong will find it and the weak will not... social darwinism is a term coined by the left which really means nothing but it helps them in their attempts to create class envy and hatred....

So tell me when we felt the need to fight the natural evolutionary factors at work in the world... when did we decide we were above all that?

No offense DC, but your understanding of evolution is laughable. I've gone over it before, and you seem to keep making the same mistakes. Oh well, just a personal gripe I guess.

On a side note, are you saying that the only time you "believe" in the theory of evolution through natural selection, as you put it, is in this context?

The notion that socialism is good and capitalism is bad is a flawed one, with little consideration for facts and history.

The notion that socialism is bad and capitalism is good is a flawed one, with little consideration for facts and history.

Both systems are wildly flawed. Both also have philosophical and practical merit. Neither will be effective under a bureaucratic or corrupt government. Neither will be effective without components of the other being implemented.

Generally whenever someone lauds one while disdaining the other ... they have little to offer to the discussion.

Where humans are involved, there will be issues.

Charlie this thread is a joke...

this thread is classic facepalm...