No pay, No Spray

[Edh63]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Yes, it is debatable. I'm all for doing the right thing, but where do you draw the line? We've had so much legislation forced upon our population over the last 80+ years meant to "do the right thing" that it's turned a significant portion of the population into a bunch of whiners with their hands permanently stuck out waiting for someone else to do something for them or hand them something. They've completely lost (or probably never had it to begin with) all sense of personal responsibility, and feel they are "owed" by others. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking.

In hindsight, the fire department probably should have had some sort of contingency in place to deal with this sort of situation. They could have had a contract already drawn-up that a "victim" could sign, promising to pay the FD (pick a number, but $5K sounds reasonable) for coming to his rescue. Unfortunately, without something in writing like that, even if the guy verbally agreed to pay, you know darn-well that he'd get a lawyer to fight it after the fact on the grounds that it "wasn't fair" or some other irresponsible claim.

Sometimes in life, you need to fail HARD in order to learn a bigger/greater lesson. Unfortunately, the mindset today is to do whatever you possibly can to prevent someone from failing, whether it's not keeping score in pee wee soccer games or giving banks billions of dollars to bail them out of their own recklessness. This has only resulted in the complete disregard for personal responsibility.

Sorry, I'm now stepping down from my soapbox.

You've obviously missed the point. It's not about teaching someone a lesson the hard way, rather simply acting in a situation that requires obvious intervention. It's the same as the poster mentioned above about an off duty police officer seeing someone getting robbed and making the decision to turn the other way because he's not in uniform or not on his beat at that moment. If it were you being robbed and the officer decided to let you get the shit kicked out of you, would you be preaching "lessons learned"? If you truly believe what you're preaching right now, then you, my friend, need a "lesson" in your life. God forbid you learn it the way you see it.

There are men and women dying for you and I in the Middle East doing the right thing simply because they volunteered to do it. Are you saying that they should just drop their weapons and let shit happen so we can learn some lesson that you think we should learn?

You see, it's mindsets like yours that set poor examples for others when you could easily just act in the moment and show compassion. Who the hell cares about lessons learned when we have the opportunity to help someone in need? The first thing is to help. We can always be litigious afterward. If in fact your first interest is to teach someone a lesson before showing compassion, as in this situation, then you have failed yourself. Just do what you know needs to be done to help someone. This has nothing to do about some free handout. It is just about acting in the moment. I would not want you on the wall guarding my best interest in the night, my friend.

[Psybits]

I've been trying to stay away from chiming in since the debate started..but I'm with Edh63 on this one..

and I agree it's not about the $75..Rike had a good idea, just forget about the $75, just do your job and send them the bill for the services and materials used (water?)..and if your worried people will follow suit, why would it if it doesn't go public?

and seriously?? your worried that everyone will just stop paying the $75 unless their house is burning? tell that to the millions of people that voluntarily pay home owners insurance, renters ins, and other forms of insurance..

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Does no one believe in personal responsibility anymore? Sorry, but those who want to balme the fire department or feel this is completely wrong are not looking at the bigger picture and/or do not understand the whole story.

The homeowner lived outside of the fire department coverage, which is paid for (most likely) from property taxes of those in the city limits. His taxes did NOT go to support the FD, but he was given the option of paying a $75 fee in order to have that coverage. He elected NOT to pay for that coverage. Now his house catches fire and he's whining about how the FD won't help him? Sorry, but he elected to gamble that he would not need the FD (and save himself $75)...and LOST. And no, I don't buy the "I forgot" excuse.

Sure, it's a sad story, but HE is the only one to blame for this. What is the FD supposed to do? Put out the fire anyway? Do that and you've just set a precedent. Now, no one will pay the $75 fee until they actually have need of the FD. That's not how it's supposed to work, and revenue for the FD just went down significantly. It's no different than auto insurance. Would anyone be arguing against Allstate (for example) if this man totalled his car without insurance, and then went around whining about how Allstate wouldn't allow him to simply pay a premium now for coverage needed after the fact? I don't think anyone would agree with that (though that's exactly what's going to happen in this country with the new health insurance mandate BS).

Okay, my flamesuit is on. Let's hear all of the reasons why my defense of the FD is wrong, and this guy was simply the victim in all of this.

How could you know if he intentionally chose not to pay, or honestly forgot?

Put out the fire (important issue) and then resolve the $75.00 (petty issue).

A 911 call comes though...

Caller: "Help me, a group of armed mad men are in my house raping my wife and children".

Response: "Sorry, you arent on the list. But we'll come by and watch."

The home and its contents were everything he had worked for his entire life. Whatever happened to helping people because its the RIGHT THING TO DO?

[mikejet]

political topic is political

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Edh63

You've obviously missed the point. It's not about teaching someone a lesson the hard way, rather simply acting in a situation that requires obvious intervention. It's the same as the poster mentioned above about an off duty police officer seeing someone getting robbed and making the decision to turn the other way because he's not in uniform or not on his beat at that moment. If it were you being robbed and the officer decided to let you get the shit kicked out of you, would you be preaching "lessons learned"? If you truly believe what your preaching right now, then you, my friend, need a "lesson" in your life. God forbid you learn it the way you see it.

There are men and women dying for you and I in the Middle East doing the right thing simply because they volunteered to do it. Are you saying that they should just drop their weapons and let shit happen so we can learn some lesson that you think we should learn?

You see, it's mindsets like yours that set poor examples for others when you could easily just act in the moment and show compassion. Who the hell cares about lessons learned when we have the opportunity to help someone in need? The first thing is to help. We can always be litigious afterward. If in fact your first interest is to teach someone a lesson before showing compassion, as in this situation, then you have failed yourself. Just do what you know needs to be done to help someone. This has nothing to do about some free handout. It is just about acting in the moment. I would not want you on the wall guarding my best interest in the night, my friend.

Nope. Any point missed is certainly yours, which is obvious based on your analogies that are not at all applicable in this situation. Take the off-duty cop analogy: First, police DO NOT have an obligation to protect individual citizens. Don't believe me? Look it up. The SCOTUS handed down that ruling a couple years ago based on a case from DC. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, but it's a fact, and something everyone should be aware of if they assume police are going to protect them as individuals. For this reason, and because I refuse to rely on others for MY protection, I have "prepared" myself for situations like you have described above so that I DON'T have to learn a lesson the hard way.

That being said, I would imagine that most off-duty cops would, in fact, try to help someone they see being victimized by a criminal. It's something ingrained in their character. Police aren't constrained by physical boundaries where they may uphold the law, and where they may not (for the most part). They would also be helping to preserve the safety of the individual, not the someone's "stuff". The FD in question did not sit back and let a person get injured or die, did they? They simply let property burn in a location they were not contracted to respond. In your opinion, contracts shouldn't matter in situations where "obvious intervention" is required? Obvious in who's opinion? Where do you draw the line on where contracts (or other rules/laws/etc.) should be ignored? I suppose you also feel that all of those people in New Orleans who ELECTED NOT to cary flood insurance should all have their claims honored anyway, simply because it's the "right thing to do"? Again, personal responsibility, my friend.

As for your military example, I have no clue how you think it is analogus to this situation. They are all performing the jobs they signed-up for (contracted to do), so it has no bearing on this case. But if you really want to go there, I can assure you there are situations almost daily where soldiers are NOT permitted to "do the right thing" because it is either not part of their current orders or it would somehow cause greater harm in the grand scheme of things. You are naive If you think this does not happen.

Your comment "who the hell cares about lessons learned" is exactly the mindset that has gotten us to where we are today. No one cares, because no one takes personal responsibility anymore. I can go on for pages listing examples, and every one of them results in our society going down a path that ends only in ruin and chaos. I can assure you, though, as Rob mentioned earlier, those that did not pay the fee before were lined-up at city hall with their checkbooks in hand. If just one of those individuals is saved from future harm because of this, then it was a valuable lesson learned, and one not soon forgotten by many more than just the man who's house burned-down.

[Edh63]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Nope. Any point missed is certainly yours, which is obvious based on your analogies that are not at all applicable in this situation. Take the off-duty cop analogy: First, police DO NOT have an obligation to protect individual citizens. Don't believe me? Look it up. The SCOTUS handed down that ruling a couple years ago based on a case from DC. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, but it's a fact, and something everyone should be aware of if they assume police are going to protect them as individuals. For this reason, and because I refuse to rely on others for MY protection, I have "prepared" myself for situations like you have described above so that I DON'T have to learn a lesson the hard way.

That being said, I would imagine that most off-duty cops would, in fact, try to help someone they see being victimized by a criminal. It's something ingrained in their character. Police aren't constrained by physical boundaries where they may uphold the law, and where they may not (for the most part). They would also be helping to preserve the safety of the individual, not the someone's "stuff". The FD in question did not sit back and let a person get injured or die, did they? They simply let property burn in a location they were not contracted to respond. In your opinion, contracts shouldn't matter in situations where "obvious intervention" is required? Obvious in who's opinion? Where do you draw the line on where contracts (or other rules/laws/etc.) should be ignored? I suppose you also feel that all of those people in New Orleans who ELECTED NOT to cary flood insurance should all have their claims honored anyway, simply because it's the "right thing to do"? Again, personal responsibility, my friend.

As for your military example, I have no clue how you think it is analogus to this situation. They are all performing the jobs they signed-up for (contracted to do), so it has no bearing on this case. But if you really want to go there, I can assure you there are situations almost daily where soldiers are NOT permitted to "do the right thing" because it is either not part of their current orders or it would somehow cause greater harm in the grand scheme of things. You are naive If you think this does not happen.

Your comment "who the hell cares about lessons learned" is exactly the mindset that has gotten us to where we are today. No one cares, because no one takes personal responsibility anymore. I can go on for pages listing examples, and every one of them results in our society going down a path that ends only in ruin and chaos. I can assure you, though, as Rob mentioned earlier, those that did not pay the fee before were lined-up at city hall with their checkbooks in hand. If just one of those individuals is saved from future harm because of this, then it was a valuable lesson learned, and one not soon forgotten by many more than just the man who's house burned-down.

You've made my point, thank you.

I stand down

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Yes, it is debatable. I'm all for doing the right thing, but where do you draw the line? We've had so much legislation forced upon our population over the last 80+ years meant to "do the right thing" that it's turned a significant portion of the population into a bunch of whiners with their hands permanently stuck out waiting for someone else to do something for them or hand them something. They've completely lost (or probably never had it to begin with) all sense of personal responsibility, and feel they are "owed" by others. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking.

In hindsight, the fire department probably should have had some sort of contingency in place to deal with this sort of situation. They could have had a contract already drawn-up that a "victim" could sign, promising to pay the FD (pick a number, but $5K sounds reasonable) for coming to his rescue. Unfortunately, without something in writing like that, even if the guy verbally agreed to pay, you know darn-well that he'd get a lawyer to fight it after the fact on the grounds that it "wasn't fair" or some other irresponsible claim.

Sometimes in life, you need to fail HARD in order to learn a bigger/greater lesson. Unfortunately, the mindset today is to do whatever you possibly can to prevent someone from failing, whether it's not keeping score in pee wee soccer games or giving banks billions of dollars to bail them out of their own recklessness. This has only resulted in the complete disregard for personal responsibility.

Sorry, I'm now stepping down from my soapbox.

There was a time, before insurance, before tax dollars provided services, that a community would rally with their buckets and pails and shovels to put out a neighbors fire just because it was the right thing to do. Was that homeowner a whiner who expected a handout?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

No one cares, because no one takes personal responsibility anymore. .

Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility to help a person in need when you are able?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I had a 10 minute helicopter ride that was $7,700.00

my sister in law took a plane ride from Grand-Rapids MI, to Cleveland OH for $32,000 that insurance wouldn't pay for....... They skipped the family vacation that year.......

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

my sister in law took a plane ride from Grand-Rapids MI, to Cleveland OH for $32,000 that insurance wouldn't pay for....... They skipped the family vacation that year.......

Yikes. Full medical support gig?

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

There was a time, before insurance, before tax dollars provided services, that a community would rally with their buckets and pails and shovels to put out a neighbors fire just because it was the right thing to do. Was that homeowner a whiner who expected a handout?

You are very correct, and I personally long for the return of those days. Unfortunately in today's society, you're equally likely to get slapped with a lawsuit versus a thank-you for trying to help someone in need. It happens far too often. My hometown was like that when I was growing-up. It's NOT like that now, which is a shame.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility to help a person in need when you are able?

I depends on the circumstances, but in general of course I do, although that's not the (original) point I was arguing. Believe it or not, I'm not the cold, heartless individual some would think. When I first heard of this story, my initial reaction was like most everyone else's...why couldn't they just put out the fire and deal with the costs later? I then started thinking about the possible reasons why and looked at the bigger picture (which I've already explained and won't re-hash). I feel for this guy, but it's nobody's fault other than his own for what happened. Actions (and inactions) have consequences in this world. I realize that sounds harsh when you look at it emotionally (who honestly wants someone to loose their house to a fire), but if one can step back and look at the entire issue, I think they'd understand why the FD did (and had to do) what they did.

Of course, it's just my opinion.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yikes. Full medical support gig?

I don't think so....... she was going to take the Helicopter (because it was at least that serious I guess) but it wasn't available........ and they had a plane "ready"

Kinda sucked, because in hind-sight, my brother thinks they could have driven

[zkcm8778]

these are happening in our world, I have saw many hospitals didn't save people until payment.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by zkcm8778

these are happening in our world, I have saw many hospitals didn't save people until payment.

Ummm, not in the US. All hospitals (except private ones) are required to provide treatment to stabilize the patient without regard for ability to pay. This is one of the many reasons everyone else has has to pay inflated health care costs.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

You are very correct, and I personally long for the return of those days. Unfortunately in today's society, you're equally likely to get slapped with a lawsuit versus a thank-you for trying to help someone in need. It happens far too often. My hometown was like that when I was growing-up. It's NOT like that now, which is a shame.


I depends on the circumstances, but in general of course I do, although that's not the (original) point I was arguing. Believe it or not, I'm not the cold, heartless individual some would think. When I first heard of this story, my initial reaction was like most everyone else's...why couldn't they just put out the fire and deal with the costs later? I then started thinking about the possible reasons why and looked at the bigger picture (which I've already explained and won't re-hash). I feel for this guy, but it's nobody's fault other than his own for what happened. Actions (and inactions) have consequences in this world. I realize that sounds harsh when you look at it emotionally (who honestly wants someone to loose their house to a fire), but if one can step back and look at the entire issue, I think they'd understand why the FD did (and had to do) what they did.

Of course, it's just my opinion.

See, thats where we differ a bit. I am opposed to handouts to people who refuse to work. Flakes. But this guy was a working homeowner, not a drug addict panhandling for "food" money that he is ultimately going to sove up his arm. He wasnt a "baby making machine" sucking welfare dry.

I can say that if I were a fireman and received the call, and the chief said do not respond, I would have anyway. Its just not in me to allow that to happen when I am capable of helping. Maybe thats just me, but I am more interested in helping than teaching the guy a lesson.

[Silo5]

“Fireman's Oath:

"My duty is to protect those that I serve from whatever danger they may face; whether it be fire, demon, or angel; no matter the danger, I will protect the people to the best of my ability. I am but a servitor of the people; my duty is to those who I serve, and to no one else. I serve The People, without fear, without remorse, without fail. My Duty is to The People. By my Fireman's Oath, I am bound to protect those who are in danger, those in times of need, those who I would serve."”

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Silo5

“Fireman's Oath:

"My duty is to protect those that I serve from whatever danger they may face; whether it be fire, demon, or angel; no matter the danger, I will protect the people to the best of my ability. I am but a servitor of the people; my duty is to those who I serve, and to no one else. I serve The People, without fear, without remorse, without fail. My Duty is to The People. By my Fireman's Oath, I am bound to protect those who are in danger, those in times of need, those who I would serve."”

Taxpayers. Or those that pay a pre-arranged fee.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Taxpayers. Or those that pay a pre-arranged fee.

A woman from Italy is vacationing in the USA. She is in a horrible car accident that she did not cause. Do emergency workers allow her to die because she isnt a taxpayer, or do they pull her from the burning wreckage because she is a fellow human being in need of help?

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

A woman from Italy is vacationing in the USA. She is in a horrible car accident that she did not cause. Do emergency workers allow her to die because she isnt a taxpayer, or do they pull her from the burning wreckage because she is a fellow human being in need of help?

Yet another failed analogy. Was the man in the OP's life in danger? Or just his property, which he failed to properly protect by keeping his fee current. Or insure, apparently.

I agree this issue needs to be fixed. Having a plan in place to charge non-compliant people for services rendered would be a smart move.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Yet another failed analogy. Was the man in the OP's life in danger? Or just his property, which he failed to properly protect by keeping his fee current. Or insure, apparently.

I agree this issue needs to be fixed. Having a plan in place to charge non-compliant people for services rendered would be a smart move.

Far from failed. You quoted a post containing the firemans oath and tried to separate who is qualified for service and who is not. My post is a perfect example of where the oath comes into play. That woman paid no taxes or fees and therefore, according to your logic, is not entitled to service.

You mention property vs life. Thats irrelevant. To serve is to serve. Firemen save lives AND property. Its what they do.

According to your logic the firemen from the OP would have "served" if there was a human in the burning house? Then they would forego the $75.00? But wouldnt that send a message that all the neighbors wouldnt really need to pay the fee?