The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
No Pay? No Play!
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Fabulous Heather Days of Summer on
-
Ben: You are right. My viewpoint is not pertinent to you because you chose to see things from only your perspective on this situation.
I already answered the other question.
I am disgusted that we would rather have an un-civilized country where basic human care for others in our society is a luxury. My service as a fire fighter is out of care for all people, not just those that are living up to their community financial obligations.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
So do the citizens in the unincorporated areas of Obion, County, TN.
Both the citizens and their government chose to avoid providing fire protection.
Under those circumstances, getting a $75 subscription from a neighboring jurisdiction's fire department is both inexpensive and a good investment.
-
-
No, Heather, your point isn't pertinent because it does not address the point under discussion.
Whether Obion County, Tennessee chooses to provide taxpayer-funded fire protection vs. using a subscription service provided by a neighboring service is the topic.
The subject of this discussion had the financial means to pay the subscription. He admitted that he intentionally didn't pay it and was upset when he lost his gamble.
That has nothing to do with the economy, socialist punishing of those who make good business decisions and rewarding those who make bad ones, or anything else you brought up.
And as I pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the tiny population of the City of South Fulton (apx. 2,500) can't afford to pay for free fire protection for the unincorporated areas of Obion County (pop. apx. 30,000. That is unaffordable, unsustainable, and bass-ackwards.
As Margaret Thatcher once famously said "The problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other people's money." That applies to what you espouse here.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I'm a bit confused by this whole mess and how it works, and I'm trying to figure how our system works and explain it.
Our fire agencies are Statewide based. They're funded by a range of sources, predominantly State Government, Donation contributions (for the volunteer brigades) and also the fire levy on your insurance.
The info below is taken from one insurers website:
The amount payable by Allianz is determined on the percentage of its premium compared to the premium of all other insurers. This percentage is not known at the date of issue of the policy and Allianz allocates to particular policies our estimate of the amount we will be required to pay towards this contribution.
Allianz is unable to calculate in advance the exact amount we need to allocate to particular policies and, as a consequence, may either over-recover or under-recover these amounts in any particular year. The under- and over-recoveries are reported to the Victorian fire authorities but no adjustment will be made to your premium by reference to any such under- or over-recovery. Allianz may take into account the under- or over-recovery in respect to our calculation of the allocation to policies in future years.Further information on Victorian Fire Service Levy - Representations to Customers
Is FSL a tax on the policyholder or the insurer?
The FSL contributions payable by an insurer constitutes a tax upon the insurance companies themselves and in broad terms is collected by a process of advance payments which are subsequently adjusted to reflect the amount of the contribution allocated to a particular insurer at the end of each year.
How much do insurers contribute to Victorian Fire Services?
Insurers insuring against fire property in Victoria are required to contribute 75% of the annual budget for Victorian fire services.
What additional taxes or charges are customers required to pay on top of the FSL estimate?
GST and Stamp Duty are calculated over and above the FSL estimate in accordance with government requirements.
Why is additional information being provided on Allianz schedules in relation to FSL?
The provisions of the Victorian State Emergency Services Act 2005 require better disclosure to customers in respect to the way FSL is estimated (and not calculated) by insurers.
Is the FSL amount billed to a customer the actual or estimated amount that will be remitted to the Victorian fire services?
The amount is an estimate only and the actual amount is not known at the date of issue of the policy. Allianz has estimated the amount it will be required to pay towards their contribution.
If Allianz over or under- estimates the FSL contribution in any given year, is the customer entitled to a refund at the end of the year?
No, Allianz will take into account the under- or over-recovery in respect to our calculation in future years.
How does Allianz estimate the FSL contribution in any given year?
There is no method by which an insurer can determine the exact amount which should be allocated to a particular policy at the time of its issue, without providing an adjustment at the end of the year once the final allocation contributions to the particular insurer are known. As this is not practical to do on a ‘policy by policy’ basis, Allianz applies and FSL rate by class of business as recommended by the Insurance Council of Australia. Allianz will take into account the under- or over-recovery in respect to our calculations in future years.
Why does similar information in respect to FSL not appear on policy schedules for risks in NSW?
State laws in NSW have no such disclosure requirements like those imposed in Victoria. However Allianz will continually monitor the situation to ensure it not only complies with relevant law but also provides an appropriate level of information regarding all charges to its customers.The system is changing quite considerably though-
Victorian home owners will pay a new tax from July 2012 to fund most of the state's firefighting effort, in a move that has won widespread community support.
At present a fire service levy is charged on insurance premiums, raising almost $600 million a year - about three-quarters of the budgets of the Country Fire Authority and Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
Premier John Brumby announced on Friday the levy would be replaced with a property-based tax, as recommended by the Bushfires Royal Commission, with a 50 per cent discount for pensioners.
Read the full article at http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/dumping-of-fire-le...
It is argued that under this new scheme, it is a fairer and more equitable system as everyone will have to pay, as oppossed to only those insured.
In terms of the fire suppression though- everyone gets the same level of suppression, regardless of your insurance status, etc. The house is burning, the fire brigade arrive and put it out. Simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Lutan - it is a very old and (i think) very rare system. You only see it in really rural areas that don't have the population density to support proper local services. You get an incident like this a few times every year. I believe the NSWFB started the same way - it was funded entirely by the insurance companies and they only responded to clients. Today, fire protection in NSW is funded entirely by a tax on homowners insurance (which is not mandatory). To me, this is the worst way to do it. I pay for fire protection, but the guy with no insurance does not. This drives up the price of insurance, but reduces the risks for those without it! Madness!
-
-
Today, fire protection in NSW is funded entirely by a tax on homowners insurance (which is not mandatory). To me, this is the worst way to do it. I pay for fire protection, but the guy with no insurance does not. This drives up the price of insurance, but reduces the risks for those without it! Madness!
See my response somewhere here about the new system in Victoria.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
And to the ones who would pull hose and fight the fire anyway, consider this:
if you are injured, you will not be covered by fire department insurance and most likely will no longer be a firefighter as well.
Then your financial obligations will quickly blur your "moral" obligations.
It is admirable that we choose to say "screw it; I'm doing it anyway", but that decision comes at an extremely high price once in awhile and in most cases, once is enough.
And Heather; I know all about the have nots. I give a lot of money to charities every year, so I will not get into the upside down mortgages or the squatters or "we" as a society.
If we had not purchased a house with a payment within our means, we would not own our house free and clear today. If we don't pay our property taxes, someone else will buy our taxes and we will no longer own our house. That motivates us to make sure that we keep a job, spend our money wisely and have the tax money when the taxes are due.
We do not rely on the charity of others, nor are we waiting for Obama's next big bailout. And in your examples and in your mind, the "haves" should pay for the "have nots". We pay and they get it for free because they made choices that put them where they are. That is not society's fault, but it certainly is society's problem.
It isn't Fate that puts us where we are; it is by choice or at least by the choices we make.
It isn't some sociology project.
-
Permalink Reply by John Karl Ambrusch, III on
-
That's pretty bad. So much for the responsibility of protecting your community. There are other ways around it I'm sure like perhaps submitting the "bill" to the homeowner's insurance company, allowing the fee to be payed from the homeowner's escrow or simply including it in that municipality's taxes, especially for a measly $75.00 / year.
I would not be surprised of that fire department or the municipality were sued for a failure in their duty to act. That's why we are here. It's atrocious; a dangerous practice and it places lives of the community's residents at risk.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
an extreme case of "following orders" I don't know if I could have done that...and I hope and pray that this isn't an example of where the Fire Service is headed......
-
Permalink Reply by Cathy Smith on
-
Here's the beancounters that decided to put the firefighters in the middle and make them look like the jerks in this mess:
Read the County Commissioner's report:
http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/Minutes/021507%20Agenda%20&%20...
Seems TML Risk Manager Paul Chambliss and insurance rep Roger Kephart were consulted about county residents who didn't join the county fire program and they recommended that fire department should NOT respond to non-members of the rural fire membership. Course when the sh*t hits the fan-these two don't have their faces splashed across the news.
Paul Chambliss is a legal beagle consultant for a "risk management" co. who decides which people are expendible in our society. He's at 731-660-8592 or email him at: pchambliss@tmlrmp.org
If you visit the website of TML you'll see "Loss education teaches the common sense approach to safety and liability management and the need to recognize exposures that may be created by actions taken".
And Roger Kephart? Why he lives right in South Fulton! Could it be a conflict of interest for Roger? He's VP of Fall & Fall Ins Agency
He's at (270) 472-1061 or email him at roger.kephart@bankwithheritage.com
Here is the current partial list of the Obion County Commissioners who can rescind this policy:
Cloney A. Taylor, (731) 885-4863 cat2225@charter.net
Terry P. Dwyer, (731) 538-2006 terrydwyer416@yahoo.com
Polk Glover, (731) 536-6226 polk@ken-tennwireless.com
Donnie Braswell, (731) 479-0212 d_braswell@bellsouth.net
Dean Jowers, (731) 885-4652 dregmail@ken-tennwireless.com
Terry E. Roberts, (731) 446-7718 terryroberts3@hotmail.com
Norma Fowler, (731) 885-3014 normafowler@msn.com
Richard E. Arnold, (731) 885-1044 arnold1006@att.net
Jerry Grady, (731) 538-9203 grady3357@msn.com
-
Permalink Reply by Greenman on
-
Art,
You're absolutely right, the decision to "Pull, or not to Pull" the hose is never an individual decision; it is a departmental decision and should be in the SOP.
However, do these pay-for-service systems really work in cases of public safety? We're not talking about cable TV or even electricity to your home. If a fire on your property gets away, you could have one hellva huge exposure go up in flames. Do we need a conflagration before the Fire Department is charged with stopping a fire?
The solution lies in legislation at state and local levels, but I believe that pay-for-service fire protection is an antiquated model and needs to be updated. For example: make it a state law that if a property lies within a subscription coverage fire district the mortgage company makes the fire protection payments, just like property taxes and homeowner's insurance coverage. If a property is owned-outright and there is no lien, and the owner "Opts out" of fire protection then the law should require them to pay the full cost of fighting the fire; in either case the Fire Department should respond and fight the fire without concern as to whether the property is up-to-date on their subscription fees.
Until the laws require and support this, local must have airtight SOPs on the subject.
Greenman
-
-
In our area we have a town that receives free fire protection from its neighboring city, and the justification for the city to provide fire protection for free is this: if one of the houses in the town has a fire and the woods catch fire, or embers land in the city, then the tax payers in the city are put at risk from the fire that started in the town.
Although we must rely on money to operate, Public Safety entities are not businesses and "public safety" should take highest priority for the department; money should be of secondary concern. That is why we have city's attorneys.
Greenman
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
