Here's another story of a homeowner who didn't pay the subscription fee for fire protection, believing that, if he had a fire, the fire department would come anyway.
He was wrong.
This follows the same line of thinking of districts who shut down their departments, believing that, if they needed fire protection, they could rely on mutual aid.
What is wrong with that thinking?
Read the story from Tennessee: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-bur...
TCSS.
Tags:
Ron;
If all you're going to do is approach this discussion with logic and rationale then there's no hope for you here. Stop trying to make sense, all it does is just muddy up the waters of emotion and opinion.
N.B. with the "new" formatting options here, not only does my sarcasm font NOT work but neither does my onboard spell cker. I wonder if FFN found a way to disable everyone's spell checker to level the playing field?
wow, lighten up! i like your spirit. but seriously, you said superheros dont charge for their services, so i was just putting a perspective to your post that i thought would be funny.
and if i offended anyone for saying we are crazy, sorry but we are...
no sain person is going to train so hard just to possibly give the ultimate sacrifice, to know the risk involved and continue to do so shows some crazyness.... learn to laugh now, there might not be a next time to do so..
David:
You just described the vast majority of the volunteer fire districts in this country.
Including mine.
Comparisons to super heroes sends the wrong message to the wrong people. It's bad enough that there are many here that, in one form or another actually do feel that way, posting such cartoons only serves to reinforce that belief for them. Many firefighter arsonists set fires so that they CAN be seen as heroes.
FETC:
What I would encourage is that those who would "respond anyway"; that they buy their own fire truck, equip it, staff it, house it, maintain it, insure it and respond because they just want to help.
I wonder how long before the money would run out?
That anyone would come on here and accuse those of understanding the financial side of the fire service as "not caring about people" is preposterous and insolent.
It isn't 1980 anymore or have you been stuck in a time warp, people.
Any insurance reps out there?
Let me ask you: if you had the insurance policy on this home, would you make sure that your policy holder HAD fire protection and if not, would you pay the claim? Would you pay the subscription fee? Would you subrogate against the fire department for the loss; even if the homeowner hadn't paid the subscription fee?
AND would this all be for naught since the homeowner set the fire that got out of control and caused the loss?
And last; would you pay the claim even if the homeowner hadn't paid his premium, because you're in the business of "helping" people?
Just curious.
Ron echoes what I wish to add as well.
I see many comments about moral or duty to act and so forth.
Here is what needs to be remembered. The person this affected lives in an area without fire protection of it's own. The residents in this area are also not paying the same taxes as those who live in the city do and receive the services. It was the decision of elected officials, who have the obligation of providing fire protection and how to do it, that a subscription was the way to go. This means that if one doesn't want to pay for fire protection, they would not receive it, and thus can keep costs down. However, as in any other insurance policy, you are taking the gamble.....in this case, the owner gambled and lost.
Now as for the owner stating they would "pay whatever it takes" after the fact is too late. One can not get flood insurance while the flood is occurring, one can not get hurricane insurance when the storm is coming ashore, one can't get earthquake insurance while the quake is occurring and so forth...why should one get fire insurance when the fire is occurring?
It comes down to getting what you pay for. If people are paying taxes, they should receive services. When someone chooses to live outside the jurisdiction of those services to avoid taxes, then they should not expect the same level of service for free. Wouldn't that just be considered socialism? This is why the subscription policy was decided, it saves money from one community that doesn't wish to have their own dept. It reduces taxes because outside residents are not paying taxes for fire protection from the city, and the burden of protection thus is placed on the property owner. This was their choice for paying less taxes.
As for a moral obligation. No, the firefighters really don't have a moral obligation. The only moral obligation would be if a life was directly threatened....that wasn't the case here. Secondly, since the fire dept isn't receiving taxes from those who wish not to pay, there is no obligation to provide the service. Basically, the firefighters took the oath to protect lives and property for their community. Since this was outside the community, there is no obligation to act. The duty to act occurred after a neighbor called 911, who did pay a subscription, the FF's had a duty to act for THAT person, not the one who had the fire. Finally, the firefighters were following orders of those officials who made such decisions.
Unfortunately, I can see both sides of this issue. There are a few situations as a Fire Officer that I pray I am never involved in and this is one of them.
Not to wander off subject, but this is how it works for certain EMS transports in Austria.
I broke my collarbone while snowboarding in Tyrol. The Red Cross ambulance was dispatched; I was loaded up, and halfway down the mountain I was asked for my Visa card...which was promptly swiped through a portable, cell phone-equipped card reader.
One wonders why this hasn't been adopted here in the US, where Visa cards are issued for medical savings accounts.
According to news accounts, a firefighter got his butt kicked at the fire station after this incident. Don't know by who or any other details, but I'd say that poor public relations had already kicked in. Pardon the pun.
Vic is exactly right in several posts here.
Another example that I think could illuminate options here is the air ambulance service here in the Pacific Northwest. The membership fee is $79/year, and life memberships are available. Non-members requiring airlift are billed at the full transport rate - it's about $7000 for a 15 minute flight.
Following this model, in the future the department could knock the fire down and bill the owner.
...and some insurance companies are hiring their own fire departments for high-value properties in high-risk areas:
the initial gut reaction based upon our emtions scream "Finances & Taxes be Damned! I'm a fireman and I'm going to put it out, that is what we do". But in this day and age fiduciary responsibility in an inevitable factor in all businesses (and yes, I consider the fire service to be a business).
As pointed out ad nauseum it was a concious CHOICE that the homeowner made, he gambled and lost. While I hate to see anyone lose their home I also know that fair is fair. I don't expect to pay my taxes and have the next guy get everything that I pay for for free. Charity is nice and good, but there is the fiduciary responsibility to the town and tax paying (or subscription paying as it may be) members.
This is going to be a PR nightmare for the mayor and fire dept, but one that should be approached head-on (apply directly where it hurts . . . head-on . . . apply directly where it hurts . . . head on) and used as a way to education the community and increase subscripiton rates to help ensure that a situation like this doesn't occur again.
Just my thoughts.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief. Powered by