Firefighters Let House Burn Down Over 75

[quote=Cubcub]Blame the mayor, not the firefighters >.>
If the firefighter had put out the fire they would be risking there jobs.[/quote]

The firefighters didn't have enough morality to put out a fire that risked memories and lives?
What if there was someone in there?
The firefighters would let someone burn to death to keep their job?

Best FireFighters [b]EVAR[/b]

[quote=Underfree]It took two hours for the fire to get from the barrel to the house. Three dogs and a cat died in the house? Owners reaction time is greater than 2 hours. Fail.

Edit: Let's take the large mental leap necessary to assume that the commentator is a Democrat. Let's also generalize the same as he does, and assume he's for pro-choice, or the legal right to abortion. He uses the Christianity argument a lot. Hypocrite's arguments don't carry a whole lot of weight in my book. Saving people's houses who haven't paid their taxes is the fundamental purpose of a democracy, yet murder is aaiiight. Ridiculous.[/quote]

Aren't the republican's pro death penalty?

Blame the mayor, not the firefighters >.>
If the firefighter had put out the fire they would be risking there jobs.

[quote=FireFighter]STOP SAYING MY NAME GUIZE. i did nuffin D;[/quote]
LOL I didn't get your joke until I saw your basil ID. Dx

OT: That is just despicable. Glad we don't have this 'fire-fighting' fee where I live.

[quote=Chaud]Yes, you could classify this as cruel, abhorrent behavior that spits on the concept of being human. But, as much as it pains me to say this, this is the result of negligence. This is not cruel, abhorrent behavior that scoffs at morality. If you do not pay but receive the same service as those who do pay, what reason would others have to pay? In fact, many would dispute their case and demand refunds because those who didn't pay still had the insurance. If you decide not to pay, you must always be willing to pay the price for such inaction.
Nonetheless, the family has my utmost sympathy. I truly wish I could do something for them, and it was excruciatingly painful for me to watch that video. I wish I could have done something, anything, about that. But, as Regulus said, we have to look past the cruelty on the surface. This incident will undoubtedly usher in much needed revision to that policy to avoid such horrifying events from taking place again.[/quote]

Although the citizen's failure to comply to the $75 fee when his/her house was burning down is quite ridiculous and idiotic, outsiders will easily overlook this fact and rather criticize the firefighters for refusing service. This is because the society view firefighters as a heroic figure due to the fact they put themselves in danger to save a stranger(s) life, and choosing not provide aid just for a small sum of money doesn't really fit in to that category, right?
And another thought, what if the firefighters charged the homeowners the sum of money AFTER they brought aid to them? The probability of the citizen being reluctant to pay would've been much lower.

the govnment will CRUSH u CRUSH u

That's BS. Firefighters should put out the fire whether they paid or not.

[quote=Venine]Well the guys rant after it was stupid, what did this have to do with Republicans at all?

He knew what risk he was taking when he didnt pay the 75$ fee. Now he knows what happens when you dont pay the fee. But i think they should of had him pay like 750$ dollars to save his house on the spot... I dont agree with them(firefighters) sitting there and letting it burn. But he knew the risk he was taking.

But they held firm to the law(?) that made everyone pay a fee for the firefighter service. So let me break a law(?) real quick just so i can save your house..... There should be an amendment to the law(?) allowing "on the spot service" for a hefty fee compared to the 75$ "yearly fee"...[/quote]

It's a a podcast available also outside youtube. It doesn't necessarily have to do with republicans but he's relating it to them based on coverage they do on other matters.
@iCanSeeYou From what I understood, they let the house burn down, but put it out when it reached other houses.

[quote=dlo1073601]it just so happens to be a quasi public good
if one family doesn't pay and still get its service, then many others will not pay for their service

the fire dept will lose a lot of money
it's to prevent a free-rider problem

so it was the man's fault for not paying
he was just very unlucky[/quote]

It's like, hmm I can either buy car insurance or not. Well I'll not.
*gets in crash* Can't you pay for my car? I need it to get to work!
Insurance company: Sorry, sir. You didn't pay for insurance.
Same with any other type of insurance.
This guy just had it off far worse than someone who wrecked their car.

[quote=DeathMagnetic]That's just Americans for you. Capitalists will do anything for a little bit of cash. They will even let people die.[/quote]
Actually, if you didn't pay the $75 separately it would most likely get added to taxes. So either you pay the tax or this happens. Either way I guess it would happen. Just one way it's taxes, the other way it's a separate fee.

[quote=Chaud]Yes, you could classify this as cruel, abhorrent behavior that spits on the concept of being human. But, as much as it pains me to say this, this is the result of negligence. This is not cruel, abhorrent behavior that scoffs at morality. If you do not pay but receive the same service as those who do pay, what reason would others have to pay? In fact, many would dispute their case and demand refunds because those who didn't pay still had the insurance. If you decide not to pay, you must always be willing to pay the price for such inaction.
Nonetheless, the family has my utmost sympathy. I truly wish I could do something for them, and it was excruciatingly painful for me to watch that video. I wish I could have done something, anything, about that. But, as Regulus said, we have to look past the cruelty on the surface. This incident will undoubtedly usher in much needed revision to that policy to avoid such horrifying events from taking place again.[/quote]

I agree, it's horrible and I really felt awful. But they knew what they were doing when they didn't pay.
They should get a volunteer fire department or something though. Or just add it to taxes so they have to pay to fund the fire station and have protection. However I'm not a fan of raising taxes.

[quote=DeathMagnetic]That's just Americans for you. Capitalists will do anything for a little bit of cash. They will even let people die.[/quote]

Did you know that banks pay people to kill other people? Did you know that america funded this Ex-iraq leader that was hanged?

@NewStyle: you clearly didn't read WITHOUT DOING ANY DAMAGE AROUND ITSELF (the house area)

I lol'd.

[quote=Dropnote]go canada lol[/quote]

Actually, (as far as I know) this is extremely uncommon in the United States. I've never heard of a fee needing to be payed in order to have fire fighters put out your house fire until I read this article a few days ago. That kind of thing is usually funded by taxes.

[quote=Regulus133]I would love to say that's a good idea, since everyone is happy in the end.

But it sets a precedent. Many would think: Why pay a yearly fee when I can just pay whenever I'm in trouble? This means substantially less money for the fire department, which in turn means poorer service.

EDIT: Note that I am assuming this money does, at some point, reach the fire department. I am not familiar with the fee, as I live in an apartment.[/quote]
Since you put it that way I see your point, though still I don't see the point to the fee, don't people pay for this stuff in taxes? (Excuse my lack of education in this field, I have yet had the chance to take economics or government)

While I feel bad for the man who lost his house, he knew the consequences when he chose to not pay the $75 (even if he didn't believe that they'd still put out his fire despite not paying the fee). I do, however, think it is completely ridiculous for there to be a fee for such a necessary service, it should be a right all citizens have...

[quote=Regulus133]So what advantage do those who [i]do[/i] pay the $75 get if firefighters should put out fires for those who do not pay? And what if no one paid at all?

Everything costs money; there's no way around it. This means that we cannot have an ideal world in which everyone gets what he wants whenever he wants it. This is an unfortunate case, but it's important to see beyond the cruelty on the surface.[/quote]

How about stop the fire and send some kind of bill afterwards? Besides the home owner even said he would pay anything if they could just stop the fire and they still refused.

Why stop a fire that will stop itself without doing any damage around itself? Why stop a fire if the object itself is already ravaged?

My teacher were talking about this Monday and we were all in shocked. And this is one of his questions for his other students.