No Pay -- No Spray

Taiden wrote: WAR ON TERROR! there I said it

I believe you mean "Overseas Contingency Operation."

carguy123 wrote: Actually Ds put the spending programs in place and then when everyone is disgusted with the spending the R's come into power & the bills come due so it only looks like the R's are spending.

An argument nullified by the Prescription Drug Act. And how's that No Child Left Behind thing workin' out for us?

Albert Queda wrote:

Taiden wrote: WAR ON TERROR! there I said it

I believe you mean "Overseas Contingency Operation."

I see what I did there.

Albert Queda wrote: I see what I did there.

You're just a man-made disaster, aren't you?

In reply to thatsnowinnebago:

Meh, this is a circular debate.

One that pits personal responsibility against government intervention, then how ethics and morals affect the "perceived" and "proper" levels to mix oil and water.

What goes around, comes around - eventually.

MadScientistMatt wrote: Fire is one of those sorts of protections, like police or an army, where it's a collective benefit to the public, and it's hard to come up with a workable method of making individuals opt in or out of it. While I generally favor limited government, there are some times I believe it's necessary to require everyone to pay a tax for something that promotes the public good, and this is one of them.

Matt you hit the nail on the head. plus eleventy billion

Wow, it sounds like a lot of you guys want everyone to get services whether they pay for it or not. Some of you should be in congress, you would fit right in.

This guy voted (or not) in the local elections for the people that decided to not provide fire protection service. Personal choice. Then, when another group of elected officials were nice enough to extend their services to cover him for a minuscule fee he decided he had better things to spend the money on. Personal choice. Burn baby burn. I would have happily watched his crap burn. It's called personal responsibility. Some of you might want to look it up. You make your decisions, you live with the consequences.

Hopefully this guy learned a valuable lesson while watching his house burn to the ground. Hopefully a lot of his neighbors did too.

Bet the FD get's its $75 from more than 80% of the folks that owe in the next week.

Sometimes it takes burning some dumb E36 M3 head's house down to remind people to be responsible.

I can't believe that nobody has suggested that the "rich" pay for fire insurance for everybody... that certainly would be the Federal solution to the problem. Any problem.

Wait, why wasn't there a pay-now option? $75 per year, or $1500 right now (or whatever full fixed plus variable plus billing costs add up to per fire). That and it not simply being part of your property taxes are what don't make sense, but I guess as a lifetime city dweller I hadn't heard much about pay-to-spray before

ok, i'll chip in. in the District with our wonderfully incompetent DCRA it's possible there could have been a SNAFU with payment, registration et al. I once sat there with a friend as they told him they had no record whatsoever for his bar - he cheekily asked for his taxes back.

they should've put the fire out and then liened the hell out of his trailer. but then I'm an angry conservative Irish Roman Catholic - have a soul, compassion for the weary huddled masses and knock his teeth down his throat later if he's a douche.

My funding comes from the Global War On Terror.

Sorry. Man-made overseas contingency doesn't roll off the tongue like Gee Wot.

(GWOT)

Dan

Our local ambulance has a subscription. You can get a super low fee for a subscription, if you ever need to be carted to the hospital, subscription holders are covered. Non subscription holders pay all actual fees(provided your health insurance doesn't cover it). You still get the service no matter what. Seems that would be an effective way to operate for the fire department in question.

nutherjrfan wrote: but then I'm an angry conservative Irish Roman Catholic - have a soul, compassion for the weary huddled masses and knock his teeth down his throat later if he's a douche.

thats apparently what the guys brother did at the firehouse later that day

Capt Slow wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: Fire is one of those sorts of protections, like police or an army, where it's a collective benefit to the public, and it's hard to come up with a workable method of making individuals opt in or out of it. While I generally favor limited government, there are some times I believe it's necessary to require everyone to pay a tax for something that promotes the public good, and this is one of them.

Matt you hit the nail on the head. plus eleventy billion

times eleven eleventy.

Shoulda coulda woulda. If I had to guess, I'd say that people outside the city limits pitched a fit when the subscription was slated to be imposed, so the local gov't said "Fine, we'll make it optional. Please don't call when your E36 M3 is burning to the ground." But that's just a guess.

oldopelguy wrote: Bet the FD get's its $75 from more than 80% of the folks that owe in the next week. Sometimes it takes burning some dumb E36 M3 head's house down to remind people to be responsible.

ed zachary.

Not paying the $75 was stupid, but if he really offered to pay whatever they wanted for them to put the fire out, then really what it sounds like to me is that they were making an example of him, which was way out of line in that situation. I think $75 per year, or $7500 for an emergency call if you didnt pay would be fair, but not to completely refuse service for a late payment.

Travis_K wrote: Not paying the $75 was stupid, but if he really offered to pay whatever they wanted for them to put the fire out, then really what it sounds like to me is that they were making an example of him, which was way out of line in that situation. I think $75 per year, or $7500 for an emergency call if you didnt pay would be fair, but not to completely refuse service for a late payment.

I live in a trailer. I'd like an interest free loan for $7500. Will you pony up the cash?

And NOW I see where all this "SEE, this is just what those crazy right-wingers want" nonsense rhetoric is coming from. It's the Keith Olbermann / MSNBC / Huffington Post berkeley tards calling this the "Tea-Party-Republicans' vision for America." Of course, they didn't actually talk to any conservatives. They just automatically assume we're all "mouth-breathing" hick psycho militia members who don't think anyone should pay taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obion-county-fire-tragedy_b_753893.html

poopshovel wrote: And NOW I see where all this "SEE, this is just what those crazy right-wingers want" nonsense rhetoric is coming from. It's the Keith Olbermann / MSNBC / Huffington Post berkeley tards calling this the "Tea-Party-Republicans' vision for America." Of course, they didn't actually talk to any conservatives. They just automatically assume we're all "mouth-breathing" hick psycho militia members who don't think anyone should pay taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obion-county-fire-tragedy_b_753893.html

Every conclusion Oberman makes is absolutely wrong. Unfortunately the uniformed will read that and think it is true without doing any research of their own. I'm fairly conservative, but no way would I have let that house burn had I been in charge. I would however hit them with a massive bill to cover all services. This case is neither D or R related in my opinion, it's a case of a poorly written law to try to cover their costs. My guess here is there is something we are not being told, such as a personal involvement where one party doesn't like the other and it is a payback of sorts. I know a few volunteer firemen and EMT's, and I can assure you this is not in their makeup. We don't know the whole story.

Oberman using this to push government health care is a lame attempt to push an agenda.

poopshovel wrote: And NOW I see where all this "SEE, this is just what those crazy right-wingers want" nonsense rhetoric is coming from. It's the Keith Olbermann / MSNBC / Huffington Post berkeley tards calling this the "Tea-Party-Republicans' vision for America." Of course, they didn't actually talk to any conservatives. They just automatically assume we're all "mouth-breathing" hick psycho militia members who don't think anyone should pay taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obion-county-fire-tragedy_b_753893.html

"It makes no economic sense to allow what is likely a multi-hundred thousand dollar home to be consumed by flames because a failure to pay a $75 fee. Now, either the insurance company or the Cranick's will have to build a brand new home in its place. Their former home was wasted because of the absurdity of the system that had been set up to protect it."

The above quote comes directly from the linked article.

The author has made an ASSumption with never having made any effort to check the facts. It is crap like this that make it way too easy to dismiss those with the "government will save us" mentality.

And we all know that if the home owner actually lived in a multi-hundred thousand dollar home and regeged on a $75 fee, he'd be pilloried as one of the evil rich who games the system for personal profit.

Ahhh, the hypocrisy.........

I would like an optional police tax. "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" "Not sure officer, but since I don't subscribe to your service, I'll be on my way now. Have a nice day."

914Driver wrote: My funding comes from the Global War On Terror. Sorry. Man-made overseas contingency doesn't roll off the tongue like Gee Wot. (GWOT) Dan

Overseas Contingency Operation...Oh-Co. Like SoCo, but, you know, lame.

No people were in danger from the fire, just property. No suppose the firemen ran into the house and there was a problem. Some of them are injured fighting a fire that they technically have no business fighting. Their insurance decides not to pay because they were doing something they shouldn't have been. Why should they risk their families well being to save a building that the owner didn't care enough about to pay for $75 worth of coverage. I have seen workers comp deny claims like this at my job several times. It's one of the reasons the phrase "not my job" came into being.