Firefighters watch house burn because fee not paid.
http://tinyurl.com/27sbt5v
LMAO. The hell with paying a fee (tax). The government will come to my rescue ... WRONG!!!!
Only in the USA could something so stupid occur.
share
MovieChat Forums > Sicko (2007) Discussion > Firefighters watch house burn because fe...
"http://tinyurl.com/27sbt5v
LMAO. The hell with paying a fee (tax). The government will come to my rescue ... WRONG!!!!"
Aaah Set, this post says so much about you. And none of it is good.
No. It says something about our "social" programs. Weren't poster using the fire department as one of the examples of social programs that work?
And it is too funny. The guy is willing to pay the firefighters the $75 fee as his house is burning down. Just like the people who want to get into health care programs after they are sick.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Can anyone tell me what benefit there is to anyone at all in this incident ?
It says a great deal about the sick, sad and selfish nature of American society that Firefighters have been reduced to such a morally bankrupt service as this.
This is why the USA will fall from grace into the cesspool it has created for itself, no society based on selfish, uncaring, uncooperative, morally bankrupt phiiosophy has a chance.
The US will cut its own nose off to spite its own face, and then cheer as it bleeds to death.
It sucks but if they would have put out the fire then everybody would know I don't need to pay that $75 I'll pay it when my house catches on fire. It's the definition of making an example out of somebody hopefully he had home insurance.
I'm guessing they don't teach the ant and the grasshopper anymore.
"And it is too funny. The guy is willing to pay the firefighters the $75 fee as his house is burning down. Just like the people who want to get into health care programs after they are sick."
Yes, you're the type of bloke who laughs at someone losing their house to fire and would laugh at someone refused health cover for having a pre-existing condition. All because you think it proves a point.
Have you always been this black hearted or is it a new thing?
Yes, you're the type of bloke who laughs at someone losing their house to fire and would laugh at someone refused health cover for having a pre-existing condition. All because you think it proves a point.And yet ANOTHER one of my posts goes over Sashie's head like a stealth bomber.
share
Can someone, anyone, let me know who benefited from this incident?
shareThe resident did not pay the fee, but let's say the fire department put out the fire anyway. Do you think more or less people will pay the fee the next year?
Uh Set, ever heard of retroactive billing?
shareUh Set, ever heard of retroactive billing?Then why would anybody pay an annual fee? Just wait until a fire then ask to be billed retroactively.
share
"Then why would anybody pay an annual fee? Just wait until a fire then ask to be billed retroactively."
Annual fee/tax - whatever you want to call it. And no, I do believe the fire fighters should have put the fire out and then billed the homeowner retroactively. That would have been the decent thing to do.
Annual fee/tax - whatever you want to call it. And no, I do believe the fire fighters should have put the fire out and then billed the homeowner retroactively. That would have been the decent thing to do.I agree it would be the decent thing to do, but you never answered my question. With that precedent set, do you think more or less people will pay the fee the next year?
share
"With that precedent set, do you think more or less people will pay the fee the next year? "
I assumed it was a rhetorical question given the answer is so bloody obvious....
It may not be obvious to everyone so let me answer it for you.
It is human nature to get the most for the cheapest. When a precedent is set that the firemen will put out the fire and all you have to do is retroactively pay your bill, people will stop paying the annual fee.
When anyone can get something from the government without paying, then they will take advantage of it.
And the solution is just as obvious. In cases like this, raise the retroactive fee substantially. People would have the option of paying the $75 in advance or something like $3000 in an emergency. The exact figure could easily be calculated by an actuary. As you say, people are cheap and would be pressured into paying the annual fee. If they don't, they know in hard financial terms the risk they're taking, but they WON'T be taking the risk of losing everything they own while those who could help them are literally standing right there.
shareEven at a 3,000 bill the fire department still looses because people wouldn't pay the $75 for something that almost never happens. A small community only has maybe 1-2 fires a year. The bill to justify paying fireman would have to be 30-50k if you don't get the protection. The community as a whole voted to get RID of there local fire department so the fire trucks from a different community comes for the $75 fee.
shareNice try Set. Your post was clear to all and your smug assessment of the situation was evidence that you're a weak little man. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you but I'm calling it as it is.
"Can someone, anyone, let me know who benefited from this incident?"
I think Set believes that he did.
"LMAO. The hell with paying a fee (tax). The government will come to my rescue ... WRONG!!!!"
You just proved why we need not for profit health care AND not for profit fire departments.
LMAO, Thanks for the heads up.
Another thing is those people pay taxes and don't get a fire department and have to pay a neighboring county to send theirs, what sort of cr@p is that, only in they U.S.A. cr@p that's what that is!
This also proves that in a capitalist society everything is based on profit and paying, we cannot have anything that is automatically paid for through our taxes.
We are behind the rest of the world in support for our citizens.
[deleted]
This is like medical insurance, even when you pay it you can be dropped.He didn't pay for it.
share
As I've said elsewhere, the US is slowly tearing itself apart. No society can flourish when its citizens do not have a common morality and philosophy which enables cooperation and respect.
This incident is a sure sign of what happens when collectivity is lost.
Another thing is those people pay taxes and don't get a fire department and have to pay a neighboring county to send theirs, what sort of cr@p is that, only in they U.S.A. cr@p that's what that is!The residents obviously have voted down a fire department to keep their taxes lower. It's their choice.
share
[deleted]
I didn't see in the article where it said the residents voted down a fire department to keep their taxes low.Then tell me why they don't have a fire department.
he firefighter's high pensions should be taken away from them for doing this;I didn't read where they are getting high pensions.
So they will let people die in a house fireI didn't read where people were in the house.
I'm sure there will be a big lawsuit over this.I doubt it. It was the homeowner's decision not to pay the fee.
There are towns around here claiming they will get out quicker to put out a fire if someone pays another fee on top of their property taxesThe homeowner's property taxes did not go to this fire department. The department was from another community. Did you read the article?
I suppose people will have to pay an extra fee for the police to show up nextYes. If the police are from another county.
share
[deleted]
My wife works of a school district and the medical insurance they offer is over $200.00 per month just for her. They are not providing the benefits they used to.
Because costs of treatment just keep going up and up, soon no one will be able to afford it.
I know the truth about how your wife is a teacher and you receive free health care from being married to her for life.LMAO. She doesn't get free health care. I have always maintained that any benefits given by an employer is part of the compensation package. Not all employers pay benefits.
The taxpayers are revolting against all of these types of jobs with over inflated pensions and benefits & for good reason.What does this have to do with electing not to pay a fee to get fire coverage? Oh, that's right, you are the one who likes to deflect the post into another direction.
The teachers cry and whine about not getting social security yet they usually never paid into itThey didn't pay into the SS system then they don't get SS benefits. It's kind of like that guy that didn't pay the $75 for the other community's fire service.
This is another reason why you don't think anyone else should get their social security.I never said that. Figment of your imagination.
I know I've written at least 3 times about your wife's job you're benefiting greatly from & not once have you answered back.It's rather simple. She has a better benefit plan. Why wouldn't I use it?
share
[deleted]
"The residents obviously have voted down a fire department to keep their taxes lower. It's their choice."
So they have a choice if they have a fire department, that just proves that you can't rely on the residents to make the correct decision.
This is why some decisions should not be made just to save money, as you stated human nature is to get the cheapest. It's also human nature to put things off or say it won't happen to me.
Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.
BTW this does not have anything to do with better health care.
You demand people answer your questions "set" how about answering the ones I asked you about feeling sorry for those who died when their insurance company delayed or denied treatment? Don't you feel sorry for those people?
So they have a choice if they have a fire department, that just proves that you can't rely on the residents to make the correct decision.
Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.
Another advocate for the nanny state.
Listen ... people have to be responsible for their choices. Act like a man.
share
"Another advocate for the nanny state.
Listen ... people have to be responsible for their choices. Act like a man."
I see where you are coming from now, you have health insurance riding on your wife's skirt and you tell me to be act like a man. LMAO!
Your wife's insurance is provided by a state govt dept at a discount rate it seems, so much for "the nanny state".
Now I know why you won't answer my questions, hey set your slips showing.
Also what if all those residents voted not only to have no fire department but not to pay for help from the neighboring one? Then they could vote to have no police dept and no sanitation dept, no hospital's and no water......
Hell they could vote themselves back to the dark ages.
I have health insurance and still care about my fellow man who may not be as well off, unlike set oops I meant some.
I see where you are coming from now, you have health insurance riding on your wife's skirt and you tell me to be act like a man. LMAO!Are you an idiot, or do you just act like one? Benefits are part of the compensation package provided by the employer. It doesn't matter whether it is the government or Exxon.
Your wife's insurance is provided by a state govt dept at a discount rate it seems, so much for "the nanny state".
Also what if all those residents voted not only to have no fire department but not to pay for help from the neighboring one? Then they could vote to have no police dept and no sanitation dept, no hospital's and no water......They can do that. Have you ever been to a city or town meeting? I didn't think so.
One community pays for the fire department through its taxes. The other community elects not to have a fire department; most likely because it is very small, so it makes an arrangement with the next community to pay a fee for the use of its fire department. The community without the fire department quickly figures out they do not have to pay the fee UNTIL they actually need them. Now only a very small percentage of people actually need fire assistance so only a small amount of the overall annual fee is actually being paid to the fire department. But the fire department must be maintained for those few.
So what happens? The fire department starts to run a bigger deficit because of the lost revenue. They must raise taxes to the community that supports the fire department to make up the deficit.
Socialism at its finest.
share
"Are you an idiot, or do you just act like one? Benefits are part of the compensation package provided by the employer. It doesn't matter whether it is the government or Exxon."
You are saying it's fine if Exxon provides subsidized health care and the govt provides subsidized health care for citizens (being part of a compensation package of course) and all citizens who pay taxes can join. Sounds like a good plan to me. Oops sounds like not for profit health care. Who's the idiot now?
"So what happens? The fire department starts to run a bigger deficit because of the lost revenue. They must raise taxes to the community that supports the fire department to make up the deficit."
They could raise taxes by $75.00 per year, sounds like a fair figure don't you think? Then everyone would be paid up, sounds fair to me.
"Socialism at its finest."
How about insurance companies denying or delaying claims so the person dies before they can receive life saving treatment.
You ever going to comment on that? No? No heart in that chest of yours?
Capitalism at its finest!
all citizens who pay taxes can joinNo, I didn't say this.
They could raise taxes by $75.00 per year, sounds like a fair figure don't you think? Then everyone would be paid up, sounds fair to me.How can they tax someone who is not in their tax jurisdiction? This indicates you have no concept of this discussion.
share
"all citizens who pay taxes can join
No, I didn't say this."
I did, because it's a good idea and follows on from you saying it was fine for the govt to hand out subsidized health care that you belong to. Or are you denying that you receive health care subsidized by the govt?
"They could raise taxes by $75.00 per year, sounds like a fair figure don't you think? Then everyone would be paid up, sounds fair to me.
How can they tax someone who is not in their tax jurisdiction? This indicates you have no concept of this discussion."
I'll type this slowly so you will understand, those without the fire department pay local taxes which are turned over to the city with the fire department, got it?
What do you call someone who is against govt subsidized health care and has it himself?
A. Hypocrite
B. set
C. All of the above
I did, because it's a good idea and follows on from you saying it was fine for the govt to hand out subsidized health care that you belong to. Or are you denying that you receive health care subsidized by the govt?What part of compensation package don't you understand.
Do you have a job? Do you get benefits? Are you always this stupid?
share
"What part of compensation package don't you understand."
The part where you deny you are getting subsidized health care. The govt is paying part of it.
"subsidized - having partial financial support from public funds;"
"Do you have a job? Do you get benefits? Are you always this stupid?"
I have a job and get free health insurance, so it's fully paid for by my employer. Your's is partly subsidized by the govt.
How can I make it more simple for you.
I can use both words in a sentence. It would be great if the govt compensated all it's tax paying citizens with subsidized health care.
Geesh.
[deleted]
The fire department is not for profit. If you knew the story the community the house burned down in voted to get rid of their fire department. A neighboring community was willing to fight any potential fires in that community for the people who paid $75 for the whole year for protection a small amount of money. This person did not.
shareThe results of all the drop outs and failures shouldn't be rewarded to them, if they aren't doing the job well they should be let go so the students can really be educated.I totally agree.
Like I've said many times, you have better health insurance NOW, but with the way things are going I believe things will change. The voters are revolting about paying for all of this while the rest of us have to take cuts.Believe it or not, I support the change. I am one of the revolting voters. It will affect my benefits, but it is better for the country in the long run.
You act like it's just fine for a country to beat up their people and cause them to go bankrupt.Are you kidding me? This is the nanny state. Welcome to welfare, extended unemployment and now your house can't be foreclosed. You know who the suckers are? People like you and me that are actually stupid enough to be financially responsible.
You could still be dropped so don't kid yourself into thinking it couldn't happen.I am well aware of this.
My fire insurance is high because it goes into a pool to provide for others, in return I am hoping the same would be given back to me for paying it. The very same thing could and should be done with health care, there are many ways it could be made better, but then you for sure wouldn't like that!Everybody in this pool has paid into the pool. How is your fire insurance coverage if you elect not to pay the premiums?
share
How smug you are in your assessment of this stupidity, Set. While there are at least a few decent ones, a big section of the health insurance industry is running a protection racket, without even providing the protection-- their allowed to arbitrarily raise rates to whatever they want, year after year, even while giving out crappier service AND when the rest of the economy is falling apart (with lower prices the natural result, and people harder-pressed to pay). As bad as the investment bankers in the US have behaved, lots of the health insurance companies are simply criminal in what they do.
The worst of the for-profit health insurers in the USA provide absolutely nothing of value-- nothing, at all-- and just take the wealth that other people actually produce, charging way above any sensible fair market value and, even then, they rip people off and don't cover the care. This is why the USA has both the most expensive health care in the world, and the worst quality. When you look at some of it's members, hard to imagine an industry in the US with more corrupt profit leaders. Miarse said it best in their post-- the baddies among the health insurance cos are among the worst examples of US corruption in the country and show just why the USA is declining into a third-world nation faster than probably anyone else in history. I have some pretty conservative friends in the engineering profession, but even they curse the corrupt health insurers with every breath. This is why the filmmakers of Saw VI used them as a target of Jigsaw's traps in the film, they were tapping into a sense of powerlessness and visceral rage among the American audience.
Great post ^^^
I think it's actually really funny that you can slowly dissect EVERY single Republican claim about health care and discover that its either:
1.) A Lie.
or
2.) An exaggeration.
Take the claim of government wasting and inneficiency compared to the Private Sector. When you actually analyze the business plan of for-profit health insurance companies you see that they actually spend .22 cents of every dollar on overhead. Medicaid/Medicare spends like .02 cents of every dollar on overhead.
And New York City is not some rural area.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/12/09/fdny-set-to-implement-crash-tax /
They could incorporate it in into everyone's insurance it would work out very cheap! Then people could opt out like the fire levy in this thread if they don't want to pay, making people responsible for their own actions.
shareWow. Reading through this thread I realize what a total hypocrite Set is. Mooching off at his wife's health care, and telling everyone else they have to 'man up' and pay fees and premium costs or they dserve to die/watch their house burn.
share