Firefighters let house burn to the ground...
- Thread starter Rage9
- Start date
Another reason to just rent and have renter's insurance. City wants to fuck you and let your place burn down? No problem. Say hello to that sweet insurance check.
Because there are HUUUUUGE profits in health care that just don't exist in firefighting. I remember watching Michael Moore's documentary on it and some woman got her prescription for $5 in Mexico, when it orginally cost like $80 in the US. With the difference, she could have bought some fire insurance :food-smiley-010:
I'll admit, I'm not knowledgeable about the laws in that county so I can't comment on your questions.
Based on this comment then, if there were 2 fires and only enough resources to attend one, should the firefighters respond to the $75 insurance paying fire first? Or the more profitable non-paying insurance fire first?
Regardless of whether a visionary influenced the framers, the document they wrote only mentions property protections in the 5th Amendment. That provision isn't applicable in this case, and I was only responding to your assertion that the man's constitutional rights were violated. They were not. If this made it to the high courts, there is no basis for them to rule in this man's favor.
There is already at least one case where the SCOTUS ruled that the police are not obligated to protect the individual and cannot be held liable if they fail to do so. I would imagine a similar ruling in a case such as this.
Morally? I find it difficult to understand how any person with it in their power to stop it, could watch a man's house burn to the ground, but there is nothing in the COTUS which would prevent this.
Hmmm $75 before...or tens of thousands afterwards.
I still see a lot of incentive.
YEs, most people in the county have probably paid their $75 now after seeing this go on, and that is all well and good for the county.
BUT..you don't think all of those same people would have paid the $75 fee IF the fire department would have just agreed, put out the fire, and then billed the farmer for $75,000.
Thats still a hell of a lot of incentive.
Health insurance doesn't exist in pure free market form. It could probably be closer to a couple hundred dollars, but then again you save your house! Market forces beat government subsidies any day. And who said the tax system was good? Nobody.
Locke's talking about theft, not random fires that occur. Your interpretation is just bizarre.
I doubt he has $75,000 to pay them and a small town of 2,500 people probably doesn't have a huge budget to take the gamble that they may or may not get paid the money from their fines after putting out fires.
The fire service was provided by the town, not the county so the cost is spread out amongst a much higher tax base than you state.
Also, there seems to be this belief among some people on here (and Glenn Beck) that think these people can't bargain for terms outside of the original $75 coverage because they can just on a whim decide to not pay the negotiated fee and there be no recourse for the dept/govt. Liens, they exist for a reason, look them up if you don't understand them.
The fire dept. may have been on sound legal ground to let it burn, but you have to be obtuse to believe a market appropriate transaction could not have been struck that would have allowed the home owner's house to be saved and the dept not risk getting fucked.
Thats the point.
AND he did offer to foot the entire bill himself
AND its going to cost a hell of a lot more than 75k for a brand new house.
Doubtful. We are talking about rural Tennessee here. It wasn't even a "real" house. It was a doublewide trailer home.
If you're an arsonist, and you happen to get a list of houses who have not paid the $75 fee...if they refuse to put out the fire, will they still do an investigation to see what started the fire? Is there anything left to investigate once the house has burned down?
Yes, a fire rarely destroys the evidence of it's cause. It's just like any other type of forensics, smoke damage vs fire damage, profiles of accelerants, how it spread, the material being burned vs how long it took to burn. Even if a home owner has fire service paid via taxes if there are thoughts it might be arson it's going to get investigated, knowing that a fire wouldn't be put out would probably raise even more red flags concerning the connection of arson to possible insurance fraud.
And when things start to turn into arguing just for the sake of arguing.....
thats when I bail.
have fun.