|
Post by catahecassa on Oct 7, 2010 12:13:49 GMT -5
swilk - I think that there are a couple of issues here:
1st - almost anywhere/EVERYWHERE that I have heard of, the '$75' (or what ever it might be locally!) is like has been characterized - "insurance". This way the VF Dept can secure the personnel, equipment, training,etc. needed. This is what their "budget" is based on so that can guarantee operations (if you will). Should a fire occur, and someone has NOT paid the '$75', THEN they can be billed at cost - which is obviously MUCH higher. No different than NOT having insurance, and having to foot the bill for an 'event' yourself. ALSO, there are then remedies for them to be able to collect these fees (i.e. liens, insurance attachments, etc.) should someone still neglect to pay.
2ND - and MORE important...you do NOT go into this type of field (volunteer OR otherwise!) for ANY of the above.
My humble 2ยข
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 7, 2010 12:33:42 GMT -5
I agree with the first part 100%.
IMO the FD should have put the fire out and then billed on a time and material basis with about 10% added in for overhead.
But they didnt. They followed a policy that has been in place for 20 years ........ and they are getting crucified for it.
I am just discussing the criticism for following company policy.
There were no lives lost or in danger so is there a moral obligation of the FD to risk life to save some property owned by a person who neglected to pay the required fee for such protection?
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Oct 7, 2010 12:58:16 GMT -5
Lets say an apartment complex catches fire with multiple residents inside - does the fire department just watch it burn? Ignorant policy in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 7, 2010 13:05:22 GMT -5
yep .... ignorant policy.
Just to discuss ..... should an insurance company cover every occupant of that apartment complex regardless of if they had paid their renters insurance?
That would be a better comparison to the original scenario.
|
|
|
Post by wileyonetoo on Oct 7, 2010 19:33:02 GMT -5
I only caught part of the story so I have a couple of questions. Did the fire crew drive out to the fire with all of their equipment? Is the $75 fee to cover their wear and tear on vehicles, or expenses? If they had all of their equipment on the scene anyway, they spent the same money for the run as if he had paid the fee. So what was their point? Stupid....
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Oct 9, 2010 8:26:22 GMT -5
yep .... ignorant policy. Just to discuss ..... should an insurance company cover every occupant of that apartment complex regardless of if they had paid their renters insurance? That would be a better comparison to the original scenario. It seems like apples to oranges, . The insurance company is not obligated to cover anyone who they do not have a business relationship with. Why should a taxpayer have to have a business relationship with a non business, protect and serve the community fire department.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 9, 2010 11:24:21 GMT -5
You are making the assumption that his taxes went to the fd. I have not been able to figure that part out.
If we assume his taxes did not go to that fd then it comes down to the idea that He did not pay his $75 insurance premium.
If his taxes did fund that fd It all becomes a mute point
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 10, 2010 14:30:45 GMT -5
Nearly all fire departments receive public funding of some kind, normally via county property tax funds, same as police departments. Volunteer fire is no exception. There's no way they could afford to operate on just some $75 fee, and the fee sounds dangerously close to extortion to me. The fact that they allowed the home to burn over a crappy little fee says a lot for their mentality, or lack of one. The lawsuit that should be in the works will be well deserved, fire and police departments exist to ensure public safety.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 10, 2010 19:34:54 GMT -5
The department runs on the tax $ of city residents who do not pay the $75 fee. This Guy lived in the county and was required to pay the $75 for protection.
Still doesn't answer if his tax $ went to the department.
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Oct 16, 2010 2:03:25 GMT -5
If a dad "forgets" to pay his health insurance premiums and then his child gets sick and needs a life saving surgery ...... would the team of Dr's and the hospital be considered cold and heartless if they refused to do the surgery because the family cant pay? Should they just do the surgery and the other people who do pay can just pay a little more in the future? Hippocratic oath.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Oct 16, 2010 16:47:06 GMT -5
No tikky, no londre!
|
|