No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[KrazyHorse]

Do people buy health insurance of their own volition to avoid paying huge hospital bills out of pocket? They sure do! But ERs don't say they won't treat someone who comes to them and doesn't have insurance, they just bill them the cost of the services.

Indeed, and look at the result: loads of people choose not to buy insurance.

For this reason, it's pretty obvious that health insurance should be mandatory, and the fines should be enormous for not purchasing it...

[Boris Godunov]

The bottom line here is that it is simply immoral if you have the means to put out a fire and save someone's home and pets to just sit by and do nothing. It is no different from an ER turning away people who can't pay or a policeman refusing to help someone being mugged because he knows that person didn't pay his taxes or something of that nature.

No, it is absolutely NOT like that. Taxes are collectible whether or not you avail yourself of the services they pay for. The fee this guy wasn't paying was OPTIONAL.

It absolutely is. Health insurance is OPTIONAL. ERs cannot turn away people because they don't have insurance. And it is immoral to stand aside and do nothing when you're equipped to help someone in immediate trouble, regardless of taxes/fees/etc. Firefighting is NOT a mere service. Losing your home and having your pets killed is not mere property loss.

[Asher]

And it is immoral to stand aside and do nothing when you're equipped to help someone in immediate trouble, regardless of taxes/fees/etc.

In some places, this is even illegal.

[Solomwi]

From DinoDoc's own article, it's not that he decided not to do it. He usually did pay it. They were away and did not pay it on time, according to the article.

And I'm not at all surprised that an argument in favour of morality rather than strictly economics is a bizarre thing to Americans. This is the point I was making earlier.

His wife says after the fact that they were away and forgot. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter either way. Your argument isn't bizarre; it's just misguided. Insert "moral" before obligation in my post if you like. The obligation still isn't there. Hell, if rural residents paying a nominal fee for fire coverage is what makes that coverage available in the first place, as appears to be the case, the firefighters had a moral obligation to do just what they did.

[Boris Godunov]

Do people buy health insurance of their own volition to avoid paying huge hospital bills out of pocket? They sure do! But ERs don't say they won't treat someone who comes to them and doesn't have insurance, they just bill them the cost of the services.

Indeed, and look at the result: loads of people choose not to buy insurance.

For this reason, it's pretty obvious that health insurance should be mandatory, and the fines should be enormous for not purchasing it...

But you don't think people should be denied emergency treatment because they don't have insurance, which is the point.

[KrazyHorse]

So even if they only got a few grand for their efforts instead of the "full cost", what is lost here?

The men are being paid the same regardless. The equipment is already being paid for. Their costs are, more or less, completely fixed.

Any dime they guy would give them would be a net gain, would it not?

Asher, if it became obvious that those with low net worth (outside their homes, which are often bankruptcy-protected) could skate by on far-reduced expected values of losses then people wouldn't buy insurance, and would take the capped loss when it occurred.

This is precisely why liability insurance for motorists is mandated, by the way.

[Asher]

His wife says after the fact that they were away and forgot. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter either way. Your argument isn't bizarre; it's just misguided. Insert "moral" before obligation in my post if you like. The obligation still isn't there. Hell, if rural residents paying a nominal fee for fire coverage is what makes that coverage available in the first place, as appears to be the case, the firefighters had a moral obligation to do just what they did.

Unsurprisingly, you're viewing morality as a tool of law and not humanity.

If I'm equipped to help someone and I'm available to help someone at no cost to myself, I will do it every time. Why? Because I'm a decent human being. A moral human being.

That's all there is to it.

[Boris Godunov]

Nobody said anything about him paying the same rate.

He did, actually. He offered them 75$.

No.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.

[KrazyHorse]

But you don't think people should be denied emergency treatment because they don't have insurance, which is the point.

Solely because the loss is personal in nature, not monetary.

I see absolutely no reason why the city is under a moral obligation to protect this man's house.

[Asher]

Solely because the loss is personal in nature, not monetary.

I see absolutely no reason why the city is under a moral obligation to protect this man's house.

That is clear.

I see a moral obligation, down to the individual level of the firemen, to put out fires if they are present and able. It's unfathomable to me that humans can watch other people's houses burn down because some bureaucrat wasn't paid $75 on time.

The fire poses an immediate threat to other homes, ones who paid for the protection also. The fire should be put out immediately, and costs dealt with after.

[Solomwi]

Unsurprisingly, you're viewing morality as a tool of law and not humanity.

If I'm equipped to help someone and I'm available to help someone at no cost to myself, I will do it every time. Why? Because I'm a decent human being. A moral human being.

That's all there is to it.

Don't confuse morality with charity. Charity's a wonderful thing, and I might applaud (or even help) someone using his own resources to help put this guy's fire out, but it's not a necessary component of morality.

[DinoDoc]

It's a moral obligation.

Your argument brings us back to the status quo ante of no fire protection for the rural residents of the county as it would lead the expansion of services to county residents financially unsustainable.

[KrazyHorse]

No.

Apologies, read this on the phone on the way home. Must have misread.

Anyhow, the point really is that:

1) He may well not have been able to pay them what they would charge (which would have to be sufficient to make paying 75$ worth it, probabilistically)
2) Even if he'd had enough, the city is under no moral obligation to offer its services to him.

[Asher]

Don't confuse morality with charity. Charity's a wonderful thing, and I might applaud (or even help) someone using his own resources to help put this guy's fire out, but it's not a necessary component of morality.

It's not charity when the man has offered to cover all expenses.

[Solomwi]

That is clear.

I see a moral obligation, down to the individual level of the firemen, to put out fires if they are present and able. It's unfathomable to me that humans can watch other people's houses burn down because some bureaucrat wasn't paid $75 on time.

The fire poses an immediate threat to other homes, ones who paid for the protection also. The fire should be put out immediately, and costs dealt with after.

Sorry to nitpick, but let's be clear here that, from all indications, "on time" means anytime before the genetic disaster of a grandson catches the house on fire.