Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Zoom-boing]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

Punished? Give me a break. Actions have consequences. Action: he didn't pay the fee. Consequence: house burnt down. If the fire department had put the fire out they would have done this guy a huge disservice. The lesson he would have taken away was "ha! I knew I didn't have to pay and they'd still cover my ass". Hopefully he's learned a different lesson. "Hm, next time I'll pay my way and my house won't burn".

Do you see the difference between your 'bleeding heart' and 'personal responsibility'?

 

[syrenn]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

It is the difference between:

Those who choose pay for services and those who don't.

The man was more the willing to pay what ever it cost once HIS house was on fire. Where was this willingness to pay before it was on fire? He could obviously pay for it, but took the chance, gambled and lost.

You are ALWAYS asked if you have insurance when you show up in the emergency room. Those who cant pay, suck off of those how do pay.

Do you see the difference here? No one was dying or life was in danger in the house fire, it was only property that was an issue.

 

[saveliberty]

You need a fire truck long before the fire. If anyone can just wait until they need one, there won't be a truck.

 

[syrenn]

I love the responses.. They prove the point of this OP.
In my mind, any person who would stand by, and watch a house burn to the ground, knowing they could prevent it, is fucking heartless.
What happened to helping people and not worrying about cost/or profit?
This is what all of America would look like with Conservatives in charge. Your house is on fire? Hold on.. Did you pay your yearly fee?
Wait, you're being raped? Did you pay the yearly fee?
Wow. Just wow.

I have a few questions for you.

Do your parents own your home?
Do you know if your parents have fire insurance?
Have you asked them why they have fire insurance?
Do your parents think your home is worth $75 dollars a year to have the fire department show up if your house is on fire?

Go and ask them these specific questions and let us know what they think. I am not asking about the morality of the issue....just the basic answers to the questions.

bumping the questions so you dont miss them lefty

 

[boedicca]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

It is the difference between:

Those who choose pay for services and those who don't.

The man was more the willing to pay what ever it cost once HIS house was on fire. Where was this willingness to pay before it was on fire? He could obviously pay for it, but took the chance, gambled and lost.

You are ALWAYS asked if you have insurance when you show up in the emergency room. Those who cant pay, suck off of those how do pay.

Do you see the difference here? No one was dying or life was in danger in the house fire, it was only property that was an issue.

And using YL's own values on this: didn't the homeowner have an obligation to pay the $75 so that Other People's Houses would be protected?

How callous of him to deny fire protection for other people's CHILDREN!

 

[saveliberty]

I need to call 911, but my phone was disconnected for nonpayment.

A family member died without life insurance and we have all these bills.

 

[Paulie]

You need a fire truck long before the fire. If anyone can just wait until they need one, there won't be a truck.

Yes and I understand that and all, but golly this was just so cold hearted!

 

[Zoom-boing]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

Who is gonna pay for it? Nothing is free. So you tell me, who pays? His neighbors are supposed to carry his ass?

You keep on doing this typical lefty thing by changing the argument. It is not about rape, or little babies dying, or health care, or whether they should or should not have been paying taxes for the service or anything else. It is about one thing.... a man chose not to pay for a service that he knew he should pay for. That was his decision. It is not rocket science.

And don't forget the

 

[syrenn]

I need to call 911, but my phone was disconnected for nonpayment.

A family member died without life insurance and we have all these bills.

My car just got stolen, and its been found burned out and wrecked. Please insurance let me pay one month of insurance and replace my car! Ill pay for the month..hell ill pay for a year...but get me a new $50,000 car.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So you agree with the decision to let the guys house burn down?

I do and I'm not a conservative either.

I'd imagine you would be singing a different tune if it was YOUR home.

If it was my home I would have paid the annual $75 when it was due because I'm a responsible person and don't expect someone else to pull my weight. I live in a condominium right now. The HOA insures any damage to the outside of my unit, like the roof, etc., but nothing on the inside. So I went and bought condo insurance to cover the inside of my place, in case I ever have a fire or something. I didn't have to. The HOA insurance covering the outside structure was sufficient for my mortgage company, but I chose to get the inside insurance because it's the responsible thing to do.

 

[saveliberty]

You need a fire truck long before the fire. If anyone can just wait until they need one, there won't be a truck.

Yes and I understand that and all, but golly this was just so cold hearted!

It was cold hearted. The guy put his family and community at risk for $75.

 

[saveliberty]

So you agree with the decision to let the guys house burn down?

I do and I'm not a conservative either.

I'd imagine you would be singing a different tune if it was YOUR home.

If it was my home I would have paid the annual $75 when it was due because I'm a responsible person and don't expect someone else to pull my weight. I live in a condominium right now. The HOA insures any damage to the outside of my unit, like the roof, etc., but nothing on the inside. So I went and bought condo insurance to cover the inside of my place, in case I ever have a fire or something. I didn't have to. The HOA insurance covering the outside structure was sufficient for my mortgage company, but I chose to get the inside insurance because it's the responsible thing to do.

Say thank you to your parents for raising you right. You get an atta boy from me.

 

[syrenn]

Optional home owner coverage that you gamble you will never need. Do you buy in or not? Do you take the chance you will never need to be covered? Do you throw the dice it will never happen to you?

Tornado
Flood
Earthquake

 

[Charles_Main]

Optional home owner coverage that you gamble you will never need. Do you buy in or not? Do you take the chance you will never need to be covered? Do you throw the dice it will never happen to you?

Tornado
Flood
Earthquake

Your forgetting that people like Young lefty would say. People should also get their houses replaced even if they chose not to buy those types insurances as well. Basically they just want everyone covered for everything. Whether they can pay or not. They do not give a lot of thought to how this will be paid for. I guess they just think the Evil Greedy cooperation's can pay for it.

 

[goldcatt]

You need a fire truck long before the fire. If anyone can just wait until they need one, there won't be a truck.

Yes and I understand that and all, but golly this was just so cold hearted!

It was cold hearted. The guy put his family and community at risk for $75.

Yep, you're right. Under the policy as it stands he should have paid and too bad for him that he didn't.

But I still think the voluntary fee for service policy is ridiculous.

 

[Trajan]

You're exactly what is wrong with America.

you're right. Expectation of service despite non payment is atypical of folks who see themselves as entitled to whatever they need or want when they need it and refuse to take responsibility for themselves expecting someone else to bail them out.

What happened to helping people, and not worrying about cost or profit?

and what of it? Wake up and take a look around, we have been 'helping' people up the ass for decades....to suppose the folks who refused to pay for the availability of the fire dept.s service didn't consider that hey we might have a fire and need them is ridiculous.

Hello- you left this out-

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

So? The guys an idiot, he knew what was expected, he said screw it I’ll use them if I need them and won’t pay up front as he was asked to. Did he have kids? A wife? Some other home-dweller , he put them at risk to forgo a $75 fee? But then again sounds to me hes an irresponsible jackass.

 

[saveliberty]

Trajan, that is irresponsible HOMELESS jackass.

 

[boedicca]

Given YoungLefty's attitude that one shouldn't have to pay for something at all or at least until the very moment one needs it, it's pretty clear that ObamaCare is DOOMED from financial viability standpoint.

 

[Mini 14]

We have the exact same arrangement in my area, except ours is $90/year.

I pay mine the day the bill comes each year, then pay another 50/year to support the fire department in their annual fundraiser.

This guy's biggest problem isn't that he's homeless, its that he's an idiot.

He knew the risks, and rolled the dice.

Ultimately, 7 always shows up.

 

[Valerie]

Well, at least there wasn't a human being inside that may have needed assistance in getting out.

At that point, could there be murder charges pending against the unresponsive firefighters if they still refused to assist?

Wait until you call 911 and the operator does not ask you about anything about the emergency except for your proof of insurance number.

Kind of like some customer service people,
"May I be haveeng you account number? Needing your account number first.."

Exactly...What if they got it wrong??? Woops! Wrong house...Sorry!




That sort of decision should not be left up to the fire department. Public safety services should be budgeted as a priority and not left up to optional fee-for-service.