No pay, No Spray

[jw]

hey guys,
I posted this as a human passion type story not to debate politics(I know they are related here) so I ask we dont go down that path as thats not the intention of this thread. It was to show the lack of compassion for other humans in a time of need.

I am happy I live in an area where its a basic service at no extra charge

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

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?

And in the "analogy" her life was in danger. This man's wasn't. I doubt the firemen would have stood there and watched him screaming. Is that what you are trying to say? Sorry there is a big difference whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

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.

I'm glad to see we aren't too far off here. Okay, let me further clarify my position. As an individual, of course I would want to help, but this instance does not really involve individuals, per se. I'm sure every one of those firefighters felt the need and disire to help the homeowner, however, they were given orders by their superiors not to. Had they disobeyed, they would probably be facing suspensions or worse. Could the situation have been handled a little differently? Yes, but I understand why the FD did what they did. I'm sure there is a committee already formed, charged with drafting a new policy to address situations like this in the future.

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?

While this may be a good analogy to argue if it were simply a "taxpayer" issue, it's not applicable in this situation. First, the firemen did not allow anyone to be harmed (and regardless of the "rules", you can be sure they would have gone into the house had they known someone was trapped in there). Second, these emergency workers were not your "typical" public emergency workers who have a duty to the public in general. In this case, they are really private contract employees who will only work for those who have paid them. When you boil it down and take the emotional aspect out of it, it's really no different than having a contract with a plumber, mechanic, etc. to be on call and available anytime you need them, and your neighbor expecting to use them in an emergency even though he never signed-up for their services.

BTW, thanks for the civil debate and not making things personal as others have.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Rob71

And in the "analogy" her life was in danger. This man's wasn't. I doubt the firemen would have stood there and watched him screaming. Is that what you are trying to say? Sorry there is a big difference whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

I dont know if they would have or not. My point is this.

Firemans job: Save lives, business' and personal property, no matter what.

Politicians job: Haggle over taxes and fees

They should be very separate. The Fire Department should NEVER be burdened with making the decision of who gets service and who doesnt. They should respond no matter what.

Look at when they have the wild fires in Los Angeles County. The FDs from San Diego, Riverside, OC and Santa Barbera Counties all respond and chip in. Later, AFTER the fires are out, the monies are dealt with.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

I'm glad to see we aren't too far off here. Okay, let me further clarify my position. As an individual, of course I would want to help, but this instance does not really involve individuals, per se. I'm sure every one of those firefighters felt the need and disire to help the homeowner, however, they were given orders by their superiors not to. Had they disobeyed, they would probably be facing suspensions or worse. Could the situation have been handled a little differently? Yes, but I understand why the FD did what they did. I'm sure there is a committee already formed, charged with drafting a new policy to address situations like this in the future.



While this may be a good analogy to argue if it were simply a "taxpayer" issue, it's not applicable in this situation. First, the firemen did not allow anyone to be harmed (and regardless of the "rules", you can be sure they would have gone into the house had they known someone was trapped in there). Second, these emergency workers were not your "typical" public emergency workers who have a duty to the public in general. In this case, they are really private contract employees who will only work for those who have paid them. When you boil it down and take the emotional aspect out of it, it's really no different than having a contract with a plumber, mechanic, etc. to be on call and available anytime you need them, and your neighbor expecting to use them in an emergency even though he never signed-up for their services.

BTW, thanks for the civil debate and not making things personal as others have.

Keeping it civil is good.

The Fire Department that refused to respond was the South Fulton City Fire Department. You are correct that they function as a contractor in this situation. A line on a map (at them, not you) and $75.00 prevented them from saving the mans home and pets. While I understand that it is techically correct, its far to cold and detached from good form for me.

On one hand, we have laws and money issues creating a group of handout seekers. Not good. On the other hand, we have laws and money issues preventing qualified, trained, equipped professionals from aiding a descent citizen. Not good either.

I went back to read the article again, and to think more. Even their Brothers condemn the lack of action. I have to side with this guy...

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

[Psybits]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

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.

that is correct but not entirely accurate..even private hospitals are supposed to follow EMTALA..

1. What is EMTALA?

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act..
EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals". In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals.

The avowed purpose of the statute is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to "charity hospitals" or "county hospitals" because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm

...just an FYI for anyone in general

it's sad though that this isn't the case in some countries where ability to pay is what dictates the level of healthcare even though all Doctors around the world take the same Hippocratic Oath

[Psybits]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Fire Department should NEVER be burdened with making the decision of who gets service and who doesnt. They should respond no matter what.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

I agree

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Fire Department that refused to respond was the South Fulton City Fire Department. You are correct that they function as a contractor in this situation. A line on a map (at them, not you) and $75.00 prevented them from saving the mans home and pets. While I understand that it is techically correct, its far to cold and detached from good form for me.

they're worse than Mercenaries and Bounty Hunters..at least with the latter they do the job first and just send the bill after

[gonk]

Originally Posted by jw

You guys read this?

This took place not far from where I live (Memphis) and got a fair bit of local news coverage. I think the bigger issue here is why any county government would fail to have fire services for their residents. If you read the article, the people involved didn't live in the town that had fire services, but because the county didn't offer any fire services they had to contract with the town for those services. They failed to pay for the contract this year. What else could the town do - if you put out anybody's fire, no matter what, folks will quit paying and you'll end up serving the whole county using resources paid for by the town's tax base. Sure, you can bill somebody for the actual cost of responding to a fire if you have to do something, but what if they can't afford to pay or simply don't pay? What if a town homeowner calls with a house fire and the fire department is in the county, putting out a fire for a county resident who "forgot" to pay his $75? The town resident paid his taxes, but his house is going to burn because nobody's available to respond.

[Steve]

WOW!! I just noticed this thread and I'm practically speechless after reading that article. I haven't read this whole thread, so I'll just add the following. I'll also add for those of you who don't know me that I've been in the fire/rescue service for 14 years and I'm a firefighter and a paramedic. I think we have some other fire service professionals on this forum who may have already weighed in so I don't claim to be an authority here. I'm just posting based on my own personal knowledge and experience.

There are such a thing as subscription fire departments, believe it or not. You have to pay a subscription fee in order for these departments to provide you with fire protection. However, these types of departments are not the norm, and the particular department in question is not one of them.

The issue of the $75 annual fee is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. The loss of animals and property is bad enough, but what if human life had been lost in this instance? Surely this department doesn't think they can reasonably explain to a jury why they let someone die because a $75 fee was delinquent. The article says this policy of a $75 annual fee goes back 20 years or so. The motto of any dying orginazation is "we've always done it that way" and if you don't change with the times this is the type of situation you find yourself in. A lawsuit over this is inevitible and (while I would normally never say this because I HATE lawsuits) completely justified. The fire chief will most likely lose his job, as he should, and this ridiculous policy will be done away with for sure. I also wouldn't be surprised to see elected officials voted out of office. In addition to civil penalties, there may also be criminal charges resulting, and again I think this would be completely justified. We're seeing fire chiefs suffer criminal charges and go to prison over firefighter deaths that should have been prevented nowadays. We're also seeing civil and criminal charges brought against engineers and crew officers for things like not ensuring all firemen on a fire apparatus are seated and buckled in before leaving the fire station and then getting in a wreck where firemen are injured or killed. Based on these types of things I would be really surprised to see everyone walk away from this free and clear. I think it speaks volumes that professional firefighting associations are speaking out against how this was handled.

I hope they continue with this story because I'm really curious to see how this one will turn out.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by gonk

This took place not far from where I live (Memphis) and got a fair bit of local news coverage. I think the bigger issue here is why any county government would fail to have fire services for their residents. If you read the article, the people involved didn't live in the town that had fire services, but because the county didn't offer any fire services they had to contract with the town for those services. They failed to pay for the contract this year. What else could the town do - if you put out anybody's fire, no matter what, folks will quit paying and you'll end up serving the whole county using resources paid for by the town's tax base. Sure, you can bill somebody for the actual cost of responding to a fire if you have to do something, but what if they can't afford to pay or simply don't pay? What if a town homeowner calls with a house fire and the fire department is in the county, putting out a fire for a county resident who "forgot" to pay his $75? The town resident paid his taxes, but his house is going to burn because nobody's available to respond.

Its very simple. Impound the $75.00 fee on the property tax or the mortgage and transfer the funds to the service provider. Similar to PMI. Done.

[SquidPuppet]

Another reason I believe that it should have been a case of "Fight fire first, haggle after" is because of the potential that the "list" had errors.

I have had utilities, water and electric make numerous errors when reading my meters and on billing statements. Significant blunders I might add.

I realize that this guy admits that his fee went unpaid. But what if a call goes out for help and the list is wrong? When do they haggle over that? After the home is a pile of ashes?

[Dexter Morgan]

All I can say is that I would hate to live in a location where, upon responding to a call for a house fire, the first thing a fire department considers is whether or not the petty bill was paid. Put the fire out first, ask questions/settle later, seriously. I completely agree with SP and Steve on this one. It is not about proving a point, it is about doing what is right.

[zkcm8778]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

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.

yes, developed countries' benefits are much better than our developing countries. the hospitalization costs is huge every year, not every country can afford it. especially CHINA, INDIA, they have huge population

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

They could just make the law $75.00 in advance, or $1,500.00 after the flames are out. People would remember to pay the fee.

But it sucks huge that they let it burn.

That's exactly what I thought. I can see how a small town volunteer fire dept could need to have such a fee just to remain in service. That being said, how anyone could actually have the unmitigated gaul to call themselves a firefighter while watching a family's home burn to the ground is completely beyond me. Put the fire out and THEN charge a stiff fine for not having paid the small fee up front.

[jw]

Originally Posted by 787

next?

caller to 911....please help!!!... my family been hold hostage in the house att gun point...please send police officers before is to late...

911 operator:...let me see...hmmm...sir..did u fail to file income tax for year 2009?...also u dint pay for the parking tickets...so we unable to help...good luck to you and your family...

so true. I was thinking the same thing, except what happens if say you rent a property and dont receive that bill, the property owner does? or if it was on a larger scale and say a plane crashes on your home and its on fire but you didnt pay and it wasnt your fault. Its one of those things no price should be put on. Its a human compassion issue that bugs me.

I am sure hes getting offers from lawyers to pick this up already, Its all about money nowadays

[GORT]

Originally Posted by 787

next?

caller to 911....please help!!!... my family been hold hostage in the house att gun point...please send police officers before is to late...

911 operator:...let me see...hmmm...sir..did u fail to file income tax for year 2009?...also u dint pay for the parking tickets...so we unable to help...good luck to you and your family...

For me I would just have to call someone to
1:come get the bodies of the people who broke into my house
2:clean up the mess