Burning Down The House.

[Heretic]

Firefighters let home burn to the ground

[AlphaDoG]

Happens all the time around the Lake of the Ozarks. If you don't pay for fire protection they will come to the scene and prevent the spread of the fire into the surrounding woods, but nothing else.

[Spidey]

What if there were people in the house?

[snoopy]

Spidey has a good question.

In that case, I'd save the people.

I have to disagree with the guy that wrote the article, though. I don't have a problem with a libertarian world where if you don't pay your $75 fire service fee, you don't get service. I believe in two things called personal responsibility and consequences. I think that the thing that all the liberals are missing is that constantly bailing out the freeloaders and trying to equalize society Robin-Hood style breeds freeloaders, which in turn creates a society that can't support itself as a whole.

That's my 2c.

[Skyalmian]

What if there were people in the house?

No people, but 3 dogs and 1 cat burned to death.

[AlphaDoG]

Poor DoGs!

[Tunnelcat]

I was listening to the poor guy on TV and he claimed that he wanted to pay the fee, cost wasn't an option to him, but he somehow forgot about it, until his house burned down, that is. I'm sure that if a person was in danger, most civilized people would try to help. People pull victims out of burning cars all the time. But pets don't fit the bill apparently.

We're getting into the division between rural and city living and many liberals are falling into the trap. If you live in a decent sized city, you pay taxes and fees to have the services of police and fire, it's expected. If you live in the county or a rural area, sometimes many counties don't have a fee for a rural fire department because of the low population, cost or the impracticality of covering large distances, so either you are on your own for fire protection or a group of close knit neighbors set up a volunteer fire department to protect their assets. It costs them though, more than someone would pay in a city. Some people that live in an area that doesn't have fire protection have to go to certain lengths to protect their home and be able to get insurance. One of those requirements is close access to a volume of water (swimming pool sized) and some way to use it to put out a fire, ie., a fire pump truck. The other is some sort of volunteer or rural fire district. If you can't get either, you can't get house insurance, you're at the mercy of fire.

[Gooberman]

Tough call. I understand that the system fails if people don't work it....

...but it would have been extreamly tough if I was a fire fighter, to just sit back and watch this guy lose everything (including three pets), over a measly $75.

If he had a track record of paying and missed a year, then that is pretty harsh. Im guessing he refused to pay year after year, and was warned of such an occurance.

Poor DoGs!

x2

[Lothar]

he claimed that he wanted to pay the fee... but he somehow forgot about it

They mail everyone in the district every year, and then call everyone who hasn't signed up. It's not like his coverage expired silently.

Still, the department did the dumbest possible thing. The smart thing would be to put the fire out and then bill the guy (not just the $75, but the full cost of the operation.)

[Will Robinson]

he claimed that he wanted to pay the fee... but he somehow forgot about it

They mail everyone in the district every year, and then call everyone who hasn't signed up. It's not like his coverage expired silently.

Still, the department did the dumbest possible thing. The smart thing would be to put the fire out and then bill the guy (not just the $75, but the full cost of the operation.)

Exactly! In fact that should be the written policy but maybe they don't have the authority to enforce a penalty like that. If they don't have that authority the county could probably give it to them, pass an ordinance making it law.

[Gooberman]

I think the problem, is that the full cost of the operation is probably more then his house.

If everyone just waited for an emergency, they would have to charge an insane amount to keep up operation.

That is the idea behind shared risk insurrence. If I cause an accident that perminently harms someone, I would be wiped out clean financially. Yet, the odds are pretty good (knock on wood), that if I purchase insurence to prevent that scenario from happening, I will pay my whole life for something I wont use.

I think it would be difficult for fire fighters to \"balance\" their books on a per-emergency charge basis. And if they agree to perform the service so long as you pay a low fee, well, then you had better pay the low fee.

I do feel for the guy, but I keep placing myself in his shoes, where in reality I would never be in those shoes as I believe in insurrence.

[Lothar]

the full cost of the operation is probably more then his house.

The estimates I've been able to find put the cost of a firefighting operation in the low five figures, counting salaries and everything.

Having $75/year insurance is better than risking $20,000 to fight a fire, but both are better than losing six figures worth of house+contents+pets.

[Gooberman]

Perhaps,

I think the appropiate figure would be:

Total expenditures per year (Fire trucks, house, maintenance, education, salaries, etc.) / Number of Emergencies per year

i.e., \"If everyone did what he did, how much would we charge per visit.\"

I would be surprised if that was only ~20k, but you could be right. I've not looked at any of the numbers.

[Spidey]

Municipal services have more to do with economy of scale then “sharing of risk” it costs less to have one large service provider than having lots of little ones.

Believe me, if your house burns down and causes damage to others property or persons…you will still be liable.

I seriously doubt that a 75 dollar fee, contains any liability insurance, my city taxes sure as hell don’t.

Stop trying to make everything sound like socialism, so it can look good.

[Gooberman]

I seriously doubt that a 75 dollar fee, contains any liability insurance, my city taxes sure as hell don’t.

Stop trying to make everything sound like socialism, so it can look good.

huh?

$75 is shared risk when it comes to fires, going with Lothar's estimate, $20,000 is a lot worse then $75.

Most of the people who pay the $75 will never have that money benefit them in anyway, i.e., shared risk.

[Spidey]

Pooling money to buy services is not insurance. You’re not sharing the “risk” you are sharing the cost. You’re using semantics to make something sound like something else.

Insurance is provided by insurance companies, and services are provided by service companies.

“Most of the people who pay the $75 will never have that money benefit them in anyway, i.e., shared risk.”

Not true, ever live next to a burned out house, or live in a place with many burned out buildings…it is a service provided for the entire community.

Now what about the liability issue I raised, because you seemed to imply that you were covered by paying the 75 bucks.

[Lothar]

I think the appropiate figure would be:

Total expenditures per year (Fire trucks, house, maintenance, education, salaries, etc.) / Number of Emergencies per year

That was one of the types of estimates I saw, which put the number in the $3-5k range, but that was including the approx. 2/3 of Fire Department responses that are medical in nature.

I seriously doubt that a 75 dollar fee, contains any liability insurance

Who said anything about liability?

As goob pointed out, we're talking about a fixed fee as a form of insurance against a $20,000 bill to pay for fire service on the spot. This is standard capitalist-approved risk aggregation.

EDIT:

You’re not sharing the “risk” you are sharing the cost.

Having to pay the entire cost is a form of risk. Ultimately, that's also what car insurance, life insurance, and the good kind of health insurance do -- the whole group shares the cost of some incident or condition, thereby mitigating the risk that any specific individual will be burdened with the full cost.

[Spidey]

That is the idea behind shared risk insurrence. If I cause an accident that perminently harms someone, I would be wiped out clean financially. Yet, the odds are pretty good (knock on wood), that if I purchase insurence to prevent that scenario from happening, I will pay my whole life for something I wont use.

[Lothar]

See my edit.

\"Shared risk\" and \"shared cost\" are the same thing; the risk you're protecting against is having to pay the full cost. The fact that he used an accident that harms someone as an example is irrelevant; the point is that aggregating risk is capitalist-approved, and that paying a fee (or taxes) for fire protection is a form of risk aggregation.

[Spidey]

As goob pointed out, we're talking about a fixed fee as a form of insurance against a $20,000 bill to pay for fire service on the spot. This is standard capitalist-approved risk aggregation.

Wrong…they let his house burn…for you to be correct, they would have to have put out the fire, then charged the 20 grand.

[Spidey]

But, that’s not the way municipal services work…sorry.

bye...

[Lothar]

As goob pointed out, we're talking about a fixed fee as a form of insurance against a $20,000 bill to pay for fire service on the spot. This is standard capitalist-approved risk aggregation.

Wrong…they let his house burn…for you to be correct, they would have to have put out the fire, then charged the 20 grand.

We'd been discussing the economics of paying the 20 grand (and the fact that it was stupid of the department not to have such an option) for the five posts previous to your entry into this particular line of thought. Please try to keep up with the ground we're actually covering, rather than imagining us to be on totally other ground.

that’s not the way municipal services work

I'm not sure this particular complaint is relevant.

Municipal services share the cost of protection across multiple taxpayers or subscribers. That is exactly how they work. They do not provide financial protection against liability judgments (that's not what they're there for), but they do provide financial protection against having the bear the full cost yourself, as one would have to do in the circumstance of a pay-in-full-when-you-use-it service.

So what of those who are not covered by the municipal service because they are both outside of the tax center and have chosen not to subscribe? I think it would be a reasonable option to allow them to pay the full cost of a firefighting operation in order to get service on the spot, and it's stupid of the FD in question not to have a policy in place allowing this already. This would provide another option, wherein a person is not sheltered from the full cost of fire protection, but they are able to mitigate the worst effects of the fire itself. This is not how most services presently work, but wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Gooberman]

That is the idea behind shared risk insurrence. If I cause an accident that perminently harms someone, I would be wiped out clean financially. Yet, the odds are pretty good (knock on wood), that if I purchase insurence to prevent that scenario from happening, I will pay my whole life for something I wont use.

I can see where the confusion came, but I specfically said, "If I purchase insurence," I was giving a seperate example of shared risk.

I did not mean to imply, and did not think I was implying, that this $75 was that insurence. If you can tell me where I can get liability for $75 a year I'm all ears

But I agree that I should of been more careful/specific with the transition. When I said, "Accident" I was actually thinking of automobile, but any would fit.

[Spidey]

Municipal services are “fee for services” not insurance, even tho they may have some of the same aspects. Municipal services are not intended to be insurance, they are a fee for services…period. They only function as insurance in a very limited way.

If I crush ants while walking down the street, I am still going somewhere as the main purpose of walking down the street…not crushing ants.

Municipal services benefit the entire community, reguardless of who has the fire. It’s not relevant who has the fire, or how much trash any particular person throws out…the entire community benefits from the service provided…insurance does not work that way. And the fire department here in Philly will not let a house burn down, because someone didn’t pay their taxes…because it’s a community service.

There are way too many differences between pay for services and insurance, to even go into here…just one example…

People pay for their services in Philadelphia based on their income and home value…not the likelihood of having a fire. If were truly shared risk…you would be paying according to that risk…as per insurance. My home could be fireproof, but I would still pay taxes based on its value. How can I be “sharing risk” if my house won’t even burn?

Municipal services just happen to have some of the aspects of insurance, but that is not their main purpose. That’s what home insurance is for.

My complaint…errr argument here is that you both are making something into a grandiose purpose that really isn’t there.

[Lothar]

Municipal services benefit the entire community

Except in the case being discussed in this thread, wherein they primarily benefit subscribers in the county.

you both are making something into a grandiose purpose that really isn’t there.

I'm not sure what's "grandiose" about anything we're discussing here.

The similarity to insurance in terms of risk mitigation? This is conceptually straightforward and not at all "grandiose". (Also note that risk-based cost adjustment isn't a necessary component of insurance, though it is a common one.)

The possibility for non-subscribers to pay for firefighting service? That already exists; Rural/Metro, for example, will fight fires for non-subscribers for an hourly rate. How is it "grandiose" to suggest that a Municipal department with a subscription-based out-of-area plan is stupid for not having a similar practice?

[Spidey]

That’s not what I meant.

My point from the beginning is that these kinds of services are based mainly on providing services in an efficient way, not a more grandiose purpose such as risk mitigation.

Grandiose may not have been a great choice of words.

[snoopy]

Lothar: here's a thought: if the people were deadbeats on the $75 service fee, why would they pay their bill after you put out their fire?

[AlphaDoG]

@Snoopy, they probably wouldn't.

[Gooberman]

That is where the legal process would take over. They could always seize the \"saved\" goods.

[Lothar]

My point from the beginning is that these kinds of services are based mainly on providing services in an efficient way, not a more grandiose purpose such as risk mitigation.

Both "risk mitigation" and "efficiency" are key reasons for the existence of such services.

if the people were deadbeats on the $75 service fee, why would they pay their bill after you put out their fire?

I was reading about this very circumstance the other day, though I forget where. The end result was that the Fire Department got a court judgment that resulted in putting a lien on the property they'd saved.

[Spidey]

In the city of Philadelphia some of the municipal services include, but are not limited to…

Police
Fire
Trash Collection
Snow Removal
Power Utilities
Telecom Access
Storm Water Removal
Sewage Treatment
Streets Dept.
Public Lighting
Public Health Dept.
Etc..

Everybody has trash…every week…
Everyone gets snow removal…well almost everyone…(main roads are plowed)
Everybody uses power everyday…
Everybody uses the streets everyday…
Etc…

But, not everyone uses the Police or Fire Department every week, so these services that are essentially the same as the others, and started and maintained for the same exact reasons, are “perceived” differently, and have some side benefits that the others do not.

[Tunnelcat]

Spidey, some of the problem is rural versus urban. There is a larger population base in a given area in urban zones to 'spread the risk' and support more reasonable fees per person or family for services than in county or rural areas. How do you spread the risk and charge reasonable fees for fire and police in a large, sparely populated area with a lower population base? And rural areas are naturally more prone to fire just due to their proximity to undeveloped wild land, so fire risk is usually higher. So do those is rural areas have pay more or perhaps nothing at all because of remote locations and different lifestyles for those same basic services we all come to expect in city life? Is it fair to expect those in the city to pay for those in neighboring rural areas?

[Spidey]

No, I don’t think city people should subsidize the fire fighting in the rural/country areas…higher cost of such services are just something that one has to bear when choosing to live there, instead of the more efficient city.

That’s one of the reasons people choose to live in the city…it’s a tradeoff to the more relaxed but sometimes higher cost lifestyle of the rural areas.

I’m sorry, I can’t really answer your other question, except to say…perhaps people could form more volunteer fire departments. But sadly this seems to be a spirit lacking in this day and age. You also need to learn how to keep the brush clear from your property, if you want to live in the woods. Automatic fire fighting systems are also an option, to reduce cost and risk…etc.

And of course…homeowners insurance…the only true and proper way to “share the risk”.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah, when we lived in Colorado Springs, my husband knew a guy that lived out in Black Forest, which is a county area north of the city. In order for this guy to be able to get homeowners insurance, he had to meet a few requirements. Cutting back the trees away from the house was one, but another was access to a large source of water in case of fire. So what he did was put in a swimming pool. He figured that as long as he had to have a tank of water sitting around, he might as well be able to enjoy it!

[Isaac]

Like this?


I bet the pressure is deadly near the bottom of that cylinder.

[Tunnelcat]

No, an in ground pool. But I'd sure hate to be standing NEXT to that thing if it ever failed! It doesn't even LOOK like it could hold all that water back! I guess if you built it ABOVE your house, if there was ever a fire, you'd just blow out the bottom of the thing and let gravity do the job of putting out your house fire. Of course it would wash your house away in the process..........

[Ferno]

see, that's what happens when an organization prioritizes money over the welfare of a family.

Since they decided not to do anything because a fee wasn't paid, I wonder how they would feel if they were suddenly told they would have to pay to rebuild the house.

fair is fair.

[snoopy]

In the city of Philadelphia some of the municipal services include, but are not limited to…

Police
Fire
Trash Collection
Snow Removal
Power Utilities
Telecom Access
Storm Water Removal
Sewage Treatment
Streets Dept.
Public Lighting
Public Health Dept.
Etc..

Everybody has trash…every week…
Everyone gets snow removal…well almost everyone…(main roads are plowed)
Everybody uses power everyday…
Everybody uses the streets everyday…
Etc…

This is my chance to bring up the ~3.9% Philadelphia wage tax, and I think they're still running at a deficit. I wouldn't say that Philly is exactly the model city when it comes to economic structure.

@Lothar: So, assuming that the people didn't pay because they're deadbeats like that, letting the house burn, and doing nothing would essentially achieve the same effect, minus the aggrivation.

As always, there's more to the story that what you read on the news. If the people were just lazy or irresponsible, but had enough money and generally paid their bills, then I like your idea of putting out the fire and billing them later. If the people were deadbeats that didn't pay their bills in general, putting out the fire and billing them would only lead to extra aggrivation. There could be a situation for either response, and we'll probably never know which really would have been the best in this case.