Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground

touch · 7 Oct 2010 at 09:34

I cant understand why so many people have a problem with this?

Would you still have a problem if he had not paid any home insurance and was robbed then expected to pay one monthly premium to the insurance company for them to replace all his stuff?

I dont see how the two scenarios are any different?

Evilsod · 7 Oct 2010 at 09:46

What gets me is that the insurance then have to pay for it. Surely theres a clause in there somewhere that would get them out of it, after all, its his own fault for not paying the fee and as such, his house burnt down. Just seems kinda backwards that the insurance has to reimburse him.

FNGsam · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:00

Yeh the insurance company (assuming he had home and contents insurance) would be spewing right now. Although they would probably have a clause saying they cover damage "if" the owner has fire brigade protection I'm guessing

iviv · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:31

As has been said, this is exactly what insurance is. You pay a small yearly/monthly sum, and in exchangs if something happens that is covered by the insurance, in this case a fire, it gets sorted.

I must admit, when I first glanced at the article/headline, I was pretty angry in an 'omg how could they do that' kind of way. But then I actually read it, and there's no problem, its how they do things over there. Don't live in the town limits, then you don't pay all the taxes, but you don't get the benefits that the taxes pay for, its pretty simple really. That said, there should probably be a really high fee, probably ten thousand dollars, to put out a house that's not covered. That would be high enough to put people off not paying the tax, but if someone's house was on fire they would be willing to pay that, and the fire service gets a nice wedge of cash to eep themselves going/buy more equipment.

andi · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:36

Phoenixdancer said:
The Big deal is:

they STILL went to his house to stop his fire from spreading...

SO they WERE there with water and shis to put it out, He offerd to pay ANYTHING so they could have charged say 3k as a fee for doing a service....

Instead there were Redneck Prats who simply said no and watched his house burn.
If I was the fire chief i would have told the owner that he would incure a 3k fee for them to end his fire becuase he didnt pay he yearly fee... in turn they make 3k and have a party wth the money.

The USA is full of prats

But if you could just pay if your house was on fire, why would anyone pay the annual fee?

He said he thought he could get away without paying and just pay them if his house caught fire. He was wrong.

Evilsod · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:37

iviv said:
As has been said, this is exactly what insurance is. You pay a small yearly/monthly sum, and in exchangs if something happens that is covered by the insurance, in this case a fire, it gets sorted.

I must admit, when I first glanced at the article/headline, I was pretty angry in an 'omg how could they do that' kind of way. But then I actually read it, and there's no problem, its how they do things over there. Don't live in the town limits, then you don't pay all the taxes, but you don't get the benefits that the taxes pay for, its pretty simple really. That said, there should probably be a really high fee, probably ten thousand dollars, to put out a house that's not covered. That would be high enough to put people off not paying the tax, but if someone's house was on fire they would be willing to pay that, and the fire service gets a nice wedge of cash to eep themselves going/buy more equipment.

Surely the thought of having your house burn down and there been nothing you can do to stop it is reason enough to pay the annual fee? You run the risk. They really don't need any fee to save your house on the day when you should just pay it anyway.

Phoenixdancer · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:58

andi said:
But if you could just pay if your house was on fire, why would anyone pay the annual fee?

He said he thought he could get away without paying and just pay them if his house caught fire. He was wrong.

I wasnt saying that...

He should have been given an option to pay 3000 or more to save his home.

3000 devided 75 = 40... So thats 40 years of protection in one sum to save his home... because he didnt pay the normal fee he has to pay an inflated one if he needs the service.
Do you not see what im getting at?

bledd · 7 Oct 2010 at 10:59

In hindsight, he should have...

1. called 911 to report the fire
2. wait until just before fire truck turns up
3. run back into the flaming inferno, shout help help
4. ?????
5. profit!

Scania · 7 Oct 2010 at 11:14

The link in the OP has some real gems in it...#
This one stood out!

Firefighter allegedly shoots cyclist in head to teach him not to ride on a busy street

Mark Frauenfelder at 2:23 PM Monday, Jul 27, 2009

200907271421 Police say firefighter Charles Diez was upset that a man was riding a bike with his 3-year-old son on a busy street so shot the cyclist in the head. The bullet embedded itself in the rider's helmet.

Diez was arrested on attempted first degree murder charges, but lucky for him the fire department in Asheville, NC is keeping him on paid investigative leave, so he will continue to draw a salary.

CaptainRAVE · 7 Oct 2010 at 11:19

Sometimes I am glad I don't live in such a backwards country!

iviv · 7 Oct 2010 at 11:27

Evilsod said:
Surely the thought of having your house burn down and there been nothing you can do to stop it is reason enough to pay the annual fee? You run the risk. They really don't need any fee to save your house on the day when you should just pay it anyway.

Indeed, but clearly some people don't pay, so there is the possibility of them making some money out of it from desperate people. Ethical, not exactly, but they should have paid the $75.

apatia77 · 7 Oct 2010 at 12:22

Even though this is totally ridiculous it will teach the others to pay their $75 fee on time.

Stretch · 7 Oct 2010 at 12:52

We used to do the same thing here a long time ago. Then we realised it's ******* stupid idea because fire spreads. If you have to watch a fire in case it spread you may as well do everyone a favour and put the thing out asap.

iviv said:
Indeed, but clearly some people don't pay, so there is the possibility of them making some money out of it from desperate people. Ethical, not exactly, but they should have paid the $75.

They shouldn't have the choice whether or not they pay. It's call tax.

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:18

Them's the rules.

sanaxe1 · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:39

Well they obviously do not know how to run a good business do they. You don't let it burn down. You charge them the actual cost. so wages of the guys , amount of equipment used. so the final amount might of been $3000 which is payable over a set amount of time in manageable payments which could have been avoided with the $75/year. This means he has had to pay the equivalent of 38 years of payment. Now i doubt mass numbers of people are going to stop paying as there is no benefit. AS this is how hospitals work in America if you don't have insurance they don't just let you die and go oh well should have paid his insurance.

So what did the fire brigade get out of this. Nothing. They lost out on any payment and depending if the guy decides to move any future payments from him. Now admittedly the neighbours might see this guys house being burnt to the ground as a wakeup call , but then again a $3000 payment they would have to make would as well , " gosh darn-it if it can happen to jim it can happen to us"

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:42

sanaxe1 said:
Well they obviously do not know how to run a good business do they. You don't let it burn down. You charge them the actual cost. so wages of the guys , amount of equipment used. so the final amount might of been $3000 which is payable over a set amount of time in manageable payments which could have been avoided with the $75/year. This means he has had to pay the equivalent of 38 years of payment. Now i doubt mass numbers of people are going to stop paying as there is no benefit.

So what did the fire brigade get out of this. Nothing. They lost out on any payment and depending if the guy decides to move any future payments from him. Now admittedly the neighbours might see this guys house being burnt to the ground as a wakeup call , but then again a $3000 payment they would have to make would as well , " gosh darn-it if it can happen to jim it can happen to us"

They can't demand it in one go, as he won't be able to pay. They also can't demand it over a period of time as that would be a credit agreement which they probably aren't licensed to grant.

FNGsam · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:44

sanaxe1 said:
Well they obviously do not know how to run a good business do they. You don't let it burn down. You charge them the actual cost. so wages of the guys , amount of equipment used. so the final amount might of been $3000 which is payable over a set amount of time in manageable payments which could have been avoided with the $75/year. This means he has had to pay the equivalent of 38 years of payment. Now i doubt mass numbers of people are going to stop paying as there is no benefit.

So what did the fire brigade get out of this. Nothing. They lost out on any payment and depending if the guy decides to move any future payments from him. Now admittedly the neighbours might see this guys house being burnt to the ground as a wakeup call , but then again a $3000 payment they would have to make would as well , " gosh darn-it if it can happen to jim it can happen to us"

Good point there, but your basing all that on a pretty big assumption. How do you know his name is Jim!?

sanaxe1 · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:48

vonhelmet said:
They can't demand it in one go, as he won't be able to pay. They also can't demand it over a period of time as that would be a credit agreement which they probably aren't licensed to grant.

Well the fire-brigade belong to the town of South Fulton and i'm guessing their council/local goverment are.

Django x2 · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:54

I can only hope therefore, that the $75 pays the firemans wages and that they are not funded through any other means???

I'd love to know what they would have done if someone was inside...

matt_fsr · 7 Oct 2010 at 13:55

sanaxe1 said:
Well they obviously do not know how to run a good business do they. You don't let it burn down. You charge them the actual cost. so wages of the guys , amount of equipment used. so the final amount might of been $3000 which is payable over a set amount of time in manageable payments which could have been avoided with the $75/year. This means he has had to pay the equivalent of 38 years of payment.

Yeah, and good luck to the fire brigade ever actually seeing that money. It'd end up being paid back at $2 a week, so he'd probably end up dead long before the fire brigade get their $3000.

End result? Net loss for the fire brigage. Well done to them for sticking to their principles/policies. At the end of the day, occasionally, examples just HAVE to be made.

Americans are on the whole massively against state interference in their business, hence this strange state of affairs. Fair enough, the guy maybe got 10 years without paying his fire insurance, maybe longer! In the end, he paid the price. Silly man.