Not going to fall into your logic of absolutes. I don't believe in "fireman" insurance, and I believe in single-payer universal health care...so don't think since I believe in having to rebuild your home on your own if it burns, that I also believe you should be SOL if you get sick or injured and you don't have insurance, nor do I believe your house should burn if you haven't paid your "fireman" insurance.
Honestly, was not trying to tie this to Health Insurance in any way.....the uninsured homeowner is more commonplace than you realize.
As far as "Fireman Insurance" goes the case in question was in an "unincorporated" area with no municipal fire department.....there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning. This was an unusual situation and would not happen in 99% of the U.S......but in their case they were SOL.
there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning.
I believe he was willing to pay whatever the cost to put the fire out. Not the fee.
Oddly enough. What you kind describe here Rock, is the mob...
I wonder if the fire dept while watching the guys home burn (After he told them he would pay whatever the amount) thought, how it will teach a lesson to who ever else doesn't want to pay the "fee".
there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning.
I believe he was willing to pay whatever the cost to put the fire out. Not the fee.
Oddly enough. What you kind describe here Rock, is the mob...
I wonder if the fire dept while watching the guys home burn (After he told them he would pay whatever the amount) thought, how it will teach a lesson to who ever else doesn't want to pay the "fee".
is the Auto Insurance industry the "mob" too?
If I choose not to pay for car insurance, get in a wreck and get injured, I can't go and ask to pay for a policy at any cost after the fact.
Most choices in life come with consequences, you should know what those consequences are, act accordingly and not be surprised when hit with those consequences.
BTW...I had a conversation with a friend recently who feels that the Auto Insurance business is a scam to protect rich people and prey on the poor.
there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning.
I believe he was willing to pay whatever the cost to put the fire out. Not the fee.
Oddly enough. What you kind describe here Rock, is the mob...
I wonder if the fire dept while watching the guys home burn (After he told them he would pay whatever the amount) thought, how it will teach a lesson to who ever else doesn't want to pay the "fee".
is the Auto Insurance industry the "mob" too?
If I choose not to pay for car insurance, get in a wreck and get injured, I can't go and ask to pay for a policy at any cost after the fact.
Most choices in life come with consequences, you should know what those consequences are, act accordingly and not be surprised when hit with those consequences.
BTW...I had a conversation with a friend recently who feels that the Auto Insurance business is a scam to protect rich people and prey on the poor.
First off. I live in an area that has no fault car insurance and you must have car insurance to drive.
2nd, let me ask you. If a car starts on fire on the highway and the fire dept shows up. Do they ask if he has insurance and watch it burn if the driver says no?
Rock, I'm not really looking to debate you, since this is so far off the topic at hand. If you really think you're on the side of righteousness, that if you as a fireman showed up at someones home and had the opportunity to put out the fire before it burnt down and you just sat there and watched it burn because someone didn't pay the fee... I don't know what to say.
Why not just put the fire out and hand the guy a bill for the full cost of services rendered ($5000, $10000, whatever)? Instead, you roll out there and do nothing?
Rock. What if someone was trapped inside? Would it be ok for the fire dept to forget the fee then and put out the fire?
What's next. Doctor on the street watches someone die, because you know the person has no insurance?
they call the fire dept. and they arrive and start spraying down the sides of the houses with insurance so they don't catch on fire while the one without insurance burns.
I'd like to get some of that new sprayable insurance.
there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning.
I believe he was willing to pay whatever the cost to put the fire out. Not the fee.
Oddly enough. What you kind describe here Rock, is the mob...
I wonder if the fire dept while watching the guys home burn (After he told them he would pay whatever the amount) thought, how it will teach a lesson to who ever else doesn't want to pay the "fee".
is the Auto Insurance industry the "mob" too?
If I choose not to pay for car insurance, get in a wreck and get injured, I can't go and ask to pay for a policy at any cost after the fact.
Most choices in life come with consequences, you should know what those consequences are, act accordingly and not be surprised when hit with those consequences.
BTW...I had a conversation with a friend recently who feels that the Auto Insurance business is a scam to protect rich people and prey on the poor.
First off. I live in an area that has no fault car insurance and you must have car insurance to drive.
2nd, let me ask you. If a car starts on fire on the highway and the fire dept shows up. Do they ask if he has insurance and watch it burn if the driver says no?
Rock, I'm not really looking to debate you, since this is so far off the topic at hand. If you really think you're on the side of righteousness, that if you as a fireman showed up at someones home and had the opportunity to put out the fire before it burnt down and you just sat there and watched it burn because someone didn't pay the fee... I don't know what to say.
Why not just put the fire out and hand the guy a bill for the full cost of services rendered ($5000, $10000, whatever)? Instead, you roll out there and do nothing?
Rock. What if someone was trapped inside? Would it be ok for the fire dept to forget the fee then and put out the fire?
What's next. Doctor on the street watches someone die, because you know the person has no insurance?
It's real easy to say ZOMG how terrible, they let the guys house burn down just because he didn't pay....
BUT
We don't know all the facts and I can think of some very reasonable scenarios why this happened.....let's just say "what if" the following is true....
Every Fire Dept. has an insurance policy to cover the firemen.....so let's say the Insurance company requires them to submit a list of how many residences they are responsible for and insure them accordingly....now they get called to a house that is NOT on that list, two firemen go in and get seriously injured or killed and the Insurance company says.. "We're not covering you, you were at a residence not within your juristdiction.".
I'm by no means saying this is what happened, and watching the guys home burn down is a shitty thing to do, but in this litigious society you never know what motivating factors are behind the scenes.
Bottom line is the dude was in an unincorporated area, his tax money did NOT go towards paying a Fire Dept. and he knowingly decided not to pay for one....sad story bro.
Bottom line is the dude was in an unincorporated area, his tax money did NOT go towards paying a Fire Dept. and he knowingly decided not to pay for one....sad story bro.
I would never knowingly live in a place where "sad story bro" was the guiding philosophy.
that must be because you are such a tolerant and empathetic human being.
We all DO live in a society where "sad story bro" happens every day....just look and the 150+ folks I listed in Oklahoma who lost their homes and had no insurance.....every one of them have a sad story.
Bottom line is the dude was in an unincorporated area, his tax money did NOT go towards paying a Fire Dept. and he knowingly decided not to pay for one....sad story bro.
I would never knowingly live in a place where "sad story bro" was the guiding philosophy.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that like most people, you would have paid for the Fire Departments services......those are the kind of things people do so they don't wind up with a sad(der) story.
I'm not sure why I'm even still trying to argue this.
OK Rock. Whatever you feel may be correct. I completely disagree.
Just answer me this. A bunch of fire trucks are on scene. People are willing to pay whatever the cost. Forget a $75.00 fee. They could have charged thousands. Why not put the fire out?
I remember the chief was saying it will make people not pay the fee because they will just put out your fire.
Which isn't true. It will teach the community that it could cost them $5000-10000 to put out the fire if they don't pay the fee.
In any case. I won't be talking about this, in this thread again. Since it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Plus, I remember we had this debate back when it happened. I'm even more convince today that your stance is wrong.
I'm not sure why I'm even still trying to argue this.
Just answer me this. A bunch of fire trucks are on scene. People are willing to pay whatever the cost. Forget a $75.00 fee. They could have charged thousands. Why not put the fire out?
Which isn't true. It will teach the community that it could cost them $5000-10000 to put out the fire if they don't pay the fee.
.
Amazingly, this did not happen once(Oct. 2010) but it happened a second time in the same area (Dec. 2011) and apparently no lesson was learned from the first incident.
In years past the unincorporated area had no Fire Service whatsoever....the closest town, South Fulton, in a charitable move, made service available to them for $75.00 a year. According to the mayor, this fee barely paid for the gas it would cost for their trucks to go to this rural area. Even if a resident didn't pay, their policy was to respond in case there were any lives in danger at which time they would do what they could to save them. They would not however put out the fire.
In the second incident the homeowner said they were aware of the earlier incident but.....
"Ms. Bell did admit that she and her boyfriend were aware of the fee but simply refused to pay because they never thought they would be hit by a fire:"
You ask why didn't they just put their lives in danger and put out the fire...I ask, why didn't they just pay the nominal fee....but my question has been answered above.
Bottom line is the dude was in an unincorporated area, his tax money did NOT go towards paying a Fire Dept. and he knowingly decided not to pay for one....sad story bro.
I would never knowingly live in a place where "sad story bro" was the guiding philosophy.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that like most people, you would have paid for the Fire Departments services......those are the kind of things people do so they don't wind up with a sad(der) story.
If for some bizarre reason I was forced to live in a shitsville "community" which refuses to provide basic services to people then I suppose I would be forced to.
But I'd also be doing things to try to change the "sad story bro" philosophy of the shitsville "community."
I know some people who live in the part of Virginia that was at the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake. They didn't have earthquake insurance - almost no one in the area did, because it just wasn't an area known for quakes. It took a little while, but FEMA has provided help. Somehow I'm glad "sad story bro" wasn't the response, even though hardasses would have said just that.
I'll admit that is a real good analogy because not forseeing an earthquake in Va. or an alien abduction in Mass. is the same as the folks refusing to pay for fire service even though houses burn at the rate of one every two minutes in the U.S.......touche~
neither republicans nor democrats answered the important questions during the debate.
for instance, we STILL don't know who let the dogs out.
It was politicians in a nutshell. They started in 1981 doing what I call, "seducing the saver." I have heard it referred to as, "screwing the thrifty."
In 1981, when the price of houses increased, low interest mortgage loans where offered against the value of one's home. For example if someone had taken a mortgage loan for $30,000 to buy a house, they had paid all but $10,000, and their house increased in value to $50,000 they could borrow another $20,000 to take trips to the carribean or buy a new car ect. Then, when houses lowered in price they wound up owing the bank.
This is why I think the size of the government needs to shrink.
neither republicans nor democrats answered the important questions during the debate.
for instance, we STILL don't know who let the dogs out.
It was politicians in a nutshell. They started in 1981 doing what I call, "seducing the saver." I have heard it referred to as, "screwing the thrifty."
In 1981, when the price of houses increased, low interest mortgage loans where offered against the value of one's home. For example if someone had taken a mortgage loan for $30,000 to buy a house, they had paid all but $10,000, and their house increased in value to $50,000 they could borrow another $20,000 to take trips to the carribean or buy a new car ect. Then, when houses lowered in price they wound up owing the bank.
This is why I think the size of the government needs to shrink.
not once did you mention dogs, or their letting out. now i KNOW you're completely useless.
I would have also accepted testimony from any one of the remaining members of the Baha Men
neither republicans nor democrats answered the important questions during the debate.
for instance, we STILL don't know who let the dogs out.
It was politicians in a nutshell. They started in 1981 doing what I call, "seducing the saver." I have heard it referred to as, "screwing the thrifty."
In 1981, when the price of houses increased, low interest mortgage loans where offered against the value of one's home. For example if someone had taken a mortgage loan for $30,000 to buy a house, they had paid all but $10,000, and their house increased in value to $50,000 they could borrow another $20,000 to take trips to the carribean or buy a new car ect. Then, when houses lowered in price they wound up owing the bank.
This is why I think the size of the government needs to shrink.
not once did you mention dogs, or their letting out. now i KNOW you're completely useless.
I would have also accepted testimony from any one of the remaining members of the Baha Men
what was that earlier electro version of "who let the dogs out" that bambaataa used on one of his late 90's mixes? did the baha men straight rip the song off?
Makes sense, since she hasn't been working much these past few years.
I don't think that's true. She was pretty busy in 2011.
According to imdb she was in 11 episodes of a TV series and she wasn't invited back for season 2 because she's a pain in the ass. She was in one episode of another show and had a minor part in a movie called House Arrest that went mostly unreviewed and unseen.
Makes sense, since she hasn't been working much these past few years.
I don't think that's true. She was pretty busy in 2011.
According to imdb she was in 11 episodes of a TV series and she wasn't invited back for season 2 because she's a pain in the ass. She was in one episode of another show and had a minor part in a movie called House Arrest that went mostly unreviewed and unseen.
Just finished watching the first Obama McCain debate for the first time since the first time (2008).
Definitely a way more vivacious Obama performance than this last debate with romNAY.
One thing I noticed tho??? no split screen! The camera stayed on the person talking, so the person not talking could take as many notes as they want. I wonder if Obama knew all his note taking (and looking down) would be filmed or if he thought the camera would just stay on romNAY during romNAY
Just finished watching the first Obama McCain debate for the first time since the first time (2004).
Definitely a way more vivacious Obama performance than this last debate with romNAY.
One thing I noticed tho??? no split screen! The camera stayed on the person talking, so the person not talking could take as many notes as they want. I wonder if Obama knew all his note taking (and looking down) would be filmed or if he thought the camera would just stay on romNAY during romNAY
Comments
Honestly, was not trying to tie this to Health Insurance in any way.....the uninsured homeowner is more commonplace than you realize.
As far as "Fireman Insurance" goes the case in question was in an "unincorporated" area with no municipal fire department.....there was a fee to receive fire department service and the homeowner knowingly did not pay it....and even offered to pay it once his home was burning. This was an unusual situation and would not happen in 99% of the U.S......but in their case they were SOL.
I believe he was willing to pay whatever the cost to put the fire out. Not the fee.
Oddly enough. What you kind describe here Rock, is the mob...
I wonder if the fire dept while watching the guys home burn (After he told them he would pay whatever the amount) thought, how it will teach a lesson to who ever else doesn't want to pay the "fee".
is the Auto Insurance industry the "mob" too?
If I choose not to pay for car insurance, get in a wreck and get injured, I can't go and ask to pay for a policy at any cost after the fact.
Most choices in life come with consequences, you should know what those consequences are, act accordingly and not be surprised when hit with those consequences.
BTW...I had a conversation with a friend recently who feels that the Auto Insurance business is a scam to protect rich people and prey on the poor.
First off. I live in an area that has no fault car insurance and you must have car insurance to drive.
2nd, let me ask you. If a car starts on fire on the highway and the fire dept shows up. Do they ask if he has insurance and watch it burn if the driver says no?
Rock, I'm not really looking to debate you, since this is so far off the topic at hand. If you really think you're on the side of righteousness, that if you as a fireman showed up at someones home and had the opportunity to put out the fire before it burnt down and you just sat there and watched it burn because someone didn't pay the fee... I don't know what to say.
Why not just put the fire out and hand the guy a bill for the full cost of services rendered ($5000, $10000, whatever)? Instead, you roll out there and do nothing?
Rock. What if someone was trapped inside? Would it be ok for the fire dept to forget the fee then and put out the fire?
What's next. Doctor on the street watches someone die, because you know the person has no insurance?
For the record, no insurance should generally mean no government funds to rebuild, IMO. Except, perhaps natural disasters.
That doesn't mean a bar on all government assistance (food, temp shelter, etc), just no money to buy a new house.
I'd like to get some of that new sprayable insurance.
The check for insurance renewal (which had expired) was in the mailbox.
I really don't know the rest of the story, how they worked it out, and what the point would be any way.
What I do know is my dad, his brother and his parents, lived in the chicken coop for more than a year while rebuilding.
It's real easy to say ZOMG how terrible, they let the guys house burn down just because he didn't pay....
BUT
We don't know all the facts and I can think of some very reasonable scenarios why this happened.....let's just say "what if" the following is true....
Every Fire Dept. has an insurance policy to cover the firemen.....so let's say the Insurance company requires them to submit a list of how many residences they are responsible for and insure them accordingly....now they get called to a house that is NOT on that list, two firemen go in and get seriously injured or killed and the Insurance company says.. "We're not covering you, you were at a residence not within your juristdiction.".
I'm by no means saying this is what happened, and watching the guys home burn down is a shitty thing to do, but in this litigious society you never know what motivating factors are behind the scenes.
Bottom line is the dude was in an unincorporated area, his tax money did NOT go towards paying a Fire Dept. and he knowingly decided not to pay for one....sad story bro.
that must be because you are such a tolerant and empathetic human being.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that like most people, you would have paid for the Fire Departments services......those are the kind of things people do so they don't wind up with a sad(der) story.
OK Rock. Whatever you feel may be correct. I completely disagree.
Just answer me this. A bunch of fire trucks are on scene. People are willing to pay whatever the cost. Forget a $75.00 fee. They could have charged thousands. Why not put the fire out?
I remember the chief was saying it will make people not pay the fee because they will just put out your fire.
Which isn't true. It will teach the community that it could cost them $5000-10000 to put out the fire if they don't pay the fee.
In any case. I won't be talking about this, in this thread again. Since it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Plus, I remember we had this debate back when it happened. I'm even more convince today that your stance is wrong.
Amazingly, this did not happen once(Oct. 2010) but it happened a second time in the same area (Dec. 2011) and apparently no lesson was learned from the first incident.
In years past the unincorporated area had no Fire Service whatsoever....the closest town, South Fulton, in a charitable move, made service available to them for $75.00 a year. According to the mayor, this fee barely paid for the gas it would cost for their trucks to go to this rural area. Even if a resident didn't pay, their policy was to respond in case there were any lives in danger at which time they would do what they could to save them. They would not however put out the fire.
In the second incident the homeowner said they were aware of the earlier incident but.....
"Ms. Bell did admit that she and her boyfriend were aware of the fee but simply refused to pay because they never thought they would be hit by a fire:"
You ask why didn't they just put their lives in danger and put out the fire...I ask, why didn't they just pay the nominal fee....but my question has been answered above.
What if my auntie had a pair of bollocks?
Would she be my uncle?
Kthxbai
Are they attached or in a jar?
for instance, we STILL don't know who let the dogs out.
I'll admit that is a real good analogy because not forseeing an earthquake in Va. or an alien abduction in Mass. is the same as the folks refusing to pay for fire service even though houses burn at the rate of one every two minutes in the U.S.......touche~
It was politicians in a nutshell. They started in 1981 doing what I call, "seducing the saver." I have heard it referred to as, "screwing the thrifty."
In 1981, when the price of houses increased, low interest mortgage loans where offered against the value of one's home. For example if someone had taken a mortgage loan for $30,000 to buy a house, they had paid all but $10,000, and their house increased in value to $50,000 they could borrow another $20,000 to take trips to the carribean or buy a new car ect. Then, when houses lowered in price they wound up owing the bank.
This is why I think the size of the government needs to shrink.
not once did you mention dogs, or their letting out. now i KNOW you're completely useless.
I would have also accepted testimony from any one of the remaining members of the Baha Men
what was that earlier electro version of "who let the dogs out" that bambaataa used on one of his late 90's mixes? did the baha men straight rip the song off?
Someone told me she has been very busy on the private consulting circuit. It is good to hear her voice.
I don't think that's true. She was pretty busy in 2011.
That said. I'm not sure why anyone is giving her so much attention on this topic. But whatever. She's entitled to her opinion.
But she is obviously a moron.
When did she do Playboy?
What about her consulting?
Definitely a way more vivacious Obama performance than this last debate with romNAY.
One thing I noticed tho??? no split screen! The camera stayed on the person talking, so the person not talking could take as many notes as they want. I wonder if Obama knew all his note taking (and looking down) would be filmed or if he thought the camera would just stay on romNAY during romNAY
Excellent question.