• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Firefighters refuse service over $75 fee

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
That is completely wrong. Fire fighters should have an obligation to do what they can to do what they are supposed to do- fight fires (doh!).

And if you don't pay a fee? You pay them back after. No one deserves to watch their house burn to the ground. 75 dollars can easily be paid back with a plan in mind.
Does your mechanic have the obligation to fix your car if you don't pay him? What about your plumber? Your electrician? I realize this is different because this guy lost his house as opposed to not having your plumbing fixed but I'm only responding to your assertion as to what they are obligated to do. They are obligated to provide services to those that have paid. They are not obligated to provide serviced to those that have not.

It's not a question of what he deserves or doesn't deserve. Not providing services is not giving him what he deserves. It's giving him what he has paid for, or not paid for in this instance.
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
If anything is ridiculous, it's the assumption that the fire department should work for free. That particular county voted on how they want their fire department funded and this is what they decided. These people CHOSE not to pay, knowing full well that not paying meant no service.

To everyone who is faulting the firefighters and/or fire department here, if your work told you they couldn't afford to pay you next Tuesday but expected you to work anyway, would you go to work next Tuesday?

We see "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" all the time. I think we've come to a day and age where, as obvious as one might think it would be, people need to start putting up signs in their windows that say "No Money, No Service". I thought that went without saying but apparently I was wrong.

One step that I believe should have been taken to avoid the blunt of this problem is these people should have been able to simply pay the $75 yesterday and have their house put out. Maybe even pay double to make up for the paperwork inconvenience. Surely that would have made more sense than just sitting there watching the house burn to the ground.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
One step that I believe should have been taken to avoid the blunt of this problem is these people should have been able to simply pay the $75 yesterday and have their house put out. Maybe even pay double to make up for the paperwork inconvenience. Surely that would have made more sense than just sitting there watching the house burn to the ground.
I think they should have paid through the nose. At least $10,000 would be fair.

I just can't stand the idea that the firefighters would let the house burn. At the same time, I almost understand it. It reminds me of movie about the Depression where a guy comes to shut off the power and the guy in the apartment begs him not too because he has 3 kids that will freeze. The power employee says if he doesn't, he will be fired and he has kids also. This wasn't life and death for the firefighters and the owner, but to me there's just this eerie sense that we're going to have to answer alot more of thee questions in the future as the ability to provide for and pay for services gets more difficult.
 

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
Does your mechanic have the obligation to fix your car if you don't pay him? What about your plumber? Your electrician? I realize this is different because this guy lost his house as opposed to not having your plumbing fixed but I'm only responding to your assertion as to what they are obligated to do. They are obligated to provide services to those that have paid. They are not obligated to provide serviced to those that have not.

It's not a question of what he deserves or doesn't deserve. Not providing services is not giving him what he deserves. It's giving him what he has paid for, or not paid for in this instance.

Your plumber or technician will gladly work out a payment plan if you cannot immediately afford service. My family has done it for years now.

But your plumbing or your car can't nearly stack up to the investment of your house, both sentimental and monetary.
In your home, you live for years, starting families, raising children. There are dozens and dozens of memories just their.

Then you could have either gotten a mortgage and bought a house, or gotten a mortgage and bought land and hired a company to build the place. Either way, thats a lot of money, and a long time in debt.

Now imagine if all that went up in smoke, literally. You have to start all over again. And you will NEVER get those memories back. They will be tainted with the painful thought of it all burning down.


Were they wrong in not paying that 75 dollars? Of course, but is just cruel to let someones home burn down, especially when something could have been worked out.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
The firefighters' reactions bug me, but I can't entirely say I blame them. My problem is with the system that created this situation.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
Here in Manitoba, if you need an ambulance, you get picked up by the ambulance and billed later. If you don't pay, it goes to a collection agency and they harass you for it. What would have been so hard about doing this in this situation.

Obviously the family was just a little late in paying. Letting their house burn is a little harsh. Why not just accept the money they were offering, put out the fire, and that would be enough of a lesson I think.
 

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
Shameful story!

To everyone who is faulting the firefighters and/or fire department here, if your work told you they couldn't afford to pay you next Tuesday but expected you to work anyway, would you go to work next Tuesday?
Firefighting is NOT like any other job. It's about people's life and if I have the chance to save a life, I won't stay there watching how this life dies just because I wasn't paid for my job.

If this issue goes on, I can resign and sue in court those who don't pay me.

Simple.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
In the US fire services are funded at the local level. Most cities have their own, some rural areas have volunteer departments where the facilities and equipment are funded through tax and the firemen are unpaid volunteers. Some townships contract the service from a nearby community. This one has apparently decided that it will contract services and individual homeowners can decide for themselves if they want to participate or not. These people obviously decided not to participate. Seems like a real value at only $75 per year. But if the homeowner is too cheap or dumb to pay then this is what happens. It is not the first time. The homeowner should have known. How is a fire dept supposed to operate with no money? You do realize it costs way more than $75 just to drive a fire truck to a call right? So the home owner rolled the dice and lost. Whose fault is that?

If I choose not to buy car insurance, then crash my car, should I be able to pay one payment and make them fix or replace my car? Who would buy insurance if that were the case?
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
If I choose not to buy car insurance, then crash my car, should I be able to pay one payment and make them fix or replace my car? Who would buy insurance if that were the case?
Yeah, the more I think about it MIT's idea makes sense. While they shouldn't have had to watch their house burn to the ground, they should have been given an option to pay $10,000 or so to have it put out. Suddenly the $75 makes a lot of sense.

And that's a good point, it's expensive for the truck to get to their house in the first place. Who is going to pay for that gas? The people who all opted in and paid the $75? How is that fair? It's screwing those who paid and rewarding those who didn't.

Coincidentally, this debate isn't much different than the health care debate in America. If you don't pay for a service, you shouldn't get it for free. If so then nobody would pay for it because they would all rather just get it for free.
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
I got one question for you guys who agree with the decision not to put the fire out.

Let's say there's someone in the house, and they have no way getting out by themselves, do you still let the house burn down and let the person die?

By some of the replies here, it seems like that would be the case.
 
Top