Damned Socialist Fire Departments

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 05, 2010 10:23 PM GMT
    Firefighters Watch As Home Burns: Gene Cranick's House Destroyed In Tennessee Over $75 Fee
    The Huffington Post | Adam J. Rose First Posted: 10- 5-10 12:12 AM
    Cranick lives outside of the city limits and he admits that he forgot to pay a $75 annual service fee that would have provided him with fire protection. Firefighters wouldn't lift a finger, much less the hoses that might have saved the house.
    Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.

    So were three dogs and a cat.


    s-TENNESSEE-FIRE-large.jpg
    Therein lies the republicanization of one lifesaving service

    Next time a burglar is robbing your sh*t? Make sure you paid THE FEE
    What a freakin' joke
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 06, 2010 5:04 AM GMT
    I read about this, this morning. I have never heard of such a silly thing. Fire departments should be available to all people, paid for by our property taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 5:47 AM GMT
    Interesting, and if his burning house had eventually set the neighbour's home on fire they'd likely be suing the fire dept.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 7:42 AM GMT
    meninlove said Interesting, and if his burning house had eventually set the neighbour's home on fire they'd likely be suing the fire dept.



    Not really...because thats exactly what happened. Except his neighbor paid the fee so they put it out once it was making its way over there.

    Its funny because this is the type of government the tea party/conservatives want..
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Oct 06, 2010 8:12 AM GMT
    Oh dear. You capitalists have some strange things going on in your 'christian' country.

    Though going on this principle, does that mean that other residents get a rebate (or no claims bonus) if they don't have a fire? Because surely that's how this system works.

    Lozx
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 06, 2010 10:06 AM GMT
    Welcome to Teaparty America

    Y'all Have a Good Time Ya'Hear icon_cool.gif

    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 1:30 PM GMT
    Well, if the fire dept is funded by these fees. I guess they felt they had to enforce "No Pay. No Spray," even when the guy wanted to pay after the fire started. Otherwise, no one would pay until they had a fire and there would be no fire dept. in the future for anyone. But I think a straight tax by the municipality would be a better system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 1:37 PM GMT
    I don't agree with the fire dept fee, it should have been covered by his taxes.

    However, if they needed to implement this, it would have been smarter to impose an extra one time fee at the time of a fire for people who want emergency coverage.

    For example perhaps make them pay $1,000 at that time. This would give incentive to pay the yearly fee but would cover someone in an emergency.

    I have not done the math to determine what the appropriate one time fee would be, but I think you get the gist of my argument.


    Caslon16000 saidWell, if the fire dept is funded by these fees. I guess they felt they had to enforce "No Pay. No Spray," even when the guy wanted to pay after the fire started. Otherwise, no one would pay until they had a fire and there would be no fire dept. in the future for anyone. But I think a straight tax by the municipality would be a better system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 1:53 PM GMT
    creyente saidI don't agree with the fire dept fee, it should have been covered by his taxes.

    However, if they needed to implement this, it would have been smarter to impose an extra one time fee at the time of a fire for people who want emergency coverage.

    For example perhaps make them pay $1,000 at that time. This would give incentive to pay the yearly fee but would cover someone in an emergency.

    I have not done the math to determine what the appropriate one time fee would be, but I think you get the gist of my argument.


    Caslon16000 saidWell, if the fire dept is funded by these fees. I guess they felt they had to enforce "No Pay. No Spray," even when the guy wanted to pay after the fire started. Otherwise, no one would pay until they had a fire and there would be no fire dept. in the future for anyone. But I think a straight tax by the municipality would be a better system.

    Yes, it certainly should be in the taxes.

    I don't think an on-the-spot fee is a good idea in this payment system, cuz people will just wait for a fire. In the meantime, the FD has no funding. Unless you charge an exorbitant fee of like $100,000.

    This is just a stupid system. And not saving the dog and cats is unconscionable!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    A better way would have been to fine the man after putting out the fire and slapping said fine on his property taxes. Or have the city sue him in court.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:01 PM GMT
    Fine, one time fee...

    you say tomayto, i say tomahto... either way it's spelled wrong.. icon_biggrin.gif

    meninlove said A better way would have been to fine the man after putting out the fire and slapping said fine on his property taxes. Or have the city sue him in court.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:03 PM GMT
    meninlove said A better way would have been to fine the man after putting out the fire and slapping said fine on his property taxes. Or have the city sue him in court.

    -Doug


    Again, people are liable to play the chances and not pay the fee. So you are back to no funds for the FD.

    But in this case, a lawsuit with legal fees, court costs, and a huge bill for services might get people's attention, too.

    In Old Town Alexandria, VA, houses still have their historical FD plaques from when the FD was by subscription in colonial times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:13 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 said
    meninlove said A better way would have been to fine the man after putting out the fire and slapping said fine on his property taxes. Or have the city sue him in court.

    -Doug


    Again, people are liable to play the chances and not pay the fee. So you are back to no funds for the FD.

    But in this case, a lawsuit with legal fees, court costs, and a huge bill for services might get people's attention, too.



    Good point. Up here, though, if a fine is added to your property taxes and you don't pay the property tax in full, the city has permission to seize your house and land and sell it after a period of time.

    This occurs in Tennessee as well (seizure and sale of property), although the period of time appears to be 2 years.

    http://www.kingsporttn.gov/delinquent-property-tax-sale-set-october-6

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    I am not sure that it would be as high as that when you consider all the variables, but since I am not an actuary I'll go with your assumption.

    In any case my point was that there should be an alternative to losing everything to a fire. Even if that alternative is as high as you quote. There are some instances in which the one time cost may be worth it.

    It would accomplish two things: provide a way to save possessions, pets and family; and highlight the cost associated with saving an individual's home (1 time fee) against the yearly fee.

    As we both agree though, ultimately this should have been covered by the taxes. It really highlights why it is not a good idea for us to move to a pay-for-critical-care-service model.


    Caslon16000 said
    meninlove said A better way would have been to fine the man after putting out the fire and slapping said fine on his property taxes. Or have the city sue him in court.

    -Doug


    Again, people are liable to play the chances and not pay the fee. So you are back to no funds for the FD.

    But in this case, a lawsuit with legal fees, court costs, and a huge bill for services might get people's attention, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:25 PM GMT
    Reading a little bit further into this, is it not true that the homeowner in question wasn't a town resident, but lived in an unincorporated area outside the town borders? And that the fire department fee was because of this, since he didn't pay town taxes? So that he could request non-resident fire department services from the neighboring town, to which he did not belong, but only with a fee he chose not to pay?

    I've lived in such rural, unincorporated areas in the US myself, and this is not an unusual policy. Still, I think the better response from the fire department would have been to save the house, but then bill the owner for their full costs, since he had declined to pay the fee, which functions like insurance.

    I hate Teabaggers, and have no use for Republicans, but I don't see this as a political issue at all, merely how small rural communities operate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:30 PM GMT
    How.
    Fucking.
    Stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2010 2:30 PM GMT
    Thanks Art!

    "Still, I think the better response from the fire department would have been to save the house, but then bill the owner for their full costs, since he had declined to pay the fee, which functions like insurance."

    That they allowed the kitties and dog to die makes me shudder. Poor little loves.

    -Doug

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 07, 2010 2:37 AM GMT
    But I think a straight tax by the municipality would be a better system.



    In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Socialist icon_cool.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 07, 2010 10:03 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock said But I think a straight tax by the municipality would be a better system.



    In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Socialist icon_cool.gif


    Go take a night course or something over at FIU and learn what socialism is.



    Hehe .... I ain't the one who's misappropriating the term "Socialist"
    If the propagandist Shoe fits ...... icon_wink.gif


    obama-socialist-poster.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 09, 2010 11:37 AM GMT
    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2010 5:20 PM GMT
    I don't know if you were aware, but Beck was on O'Reilly and O'Reilly had a different opinion. He thought the fire department should have put the fire out and then billed the family for their services.

    This has nothing to do with being a liberal versus a conservative. You can find unpopular positions, and find conservatives who hold those positions, but that does not make the position a conservative position. You understood that, right? You just have an axe to grind and will find whatever you can to support your position, even if it does not support your position. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2010 12:14 AM GMT
    socalI don't know if you were aware, but Beck was on O'Reilly and O'Reilly had a different opinion. He thought the fire department should have put the fire out and then billed the family for their services.


    Funny, that's what I thought.icon_lol.gif
    Hospitals do it all the time with ER patients without insurance...after EMTALA. Why did they not do it before? Because, then, as now, it is well-nigh impossible to collect on ALL clients, if they even have an valid telephone number or address. The fire department has no excuse though--they know exactly where Mr. Cranick lives.
    Maybe compassion can be legislated, lest people like Glenn Beck are legally correct all the time, even though they will most certainly burn in hell, if it exists. I'm just trying to save their souls.icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2010 1:12 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    socalI don't know if you were aware, but Beck was on O'Reilly and O'Reilly had a different opinion. He thought the fire department should have put the fire out and then billed the family for their services.


    Funny, that's what I thought.icon_lol.gif
    Hospital do it all the time with ER patients without insurance...after EMTALA. Why did they not do it before? Because, then, as now, it is well-nigh impossible to collect on ALL clients, if they even have an valid telephone number or address. The fire department has no excuse though--they know exactly where Mr. Cranick lives.
    Maybe compassion can be legislated, lest people like Glenn Beck are legally correct all the time, even though they will most certainly burn in hell, if it exists. I'm just trying to save their souls.icon_twisted.gif

    Don't let anyone know that you and O'Reilly have the same opinion. It will destroy your reputation. We'll just keep it a secret between ourselves. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2010 1:49 AM GMT
    "Glenn disagreed [with O'Reilly] and said that would be equivalent to Obamacare."

    (You call it Obamacare, I call it expanding health insurance.)

    Now I made that exact same point in an earlier thread.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1175818

    Neither Beck nor O'Reilly are consistent, because I don't think O'Reilly is ready to jump to "Obamacare" and Beck still wants free-riders in the healthcare market.

    So yes, I agree with O'Reilly, but he doesn't make full use of his premises and come to the right conclusions.