What's new
By:

Fire Protection Subscription?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
TroutBum said:
If you know that you don't get fire service unless you pay your bill, and then you don't pay your bill and lose your house to a fire, then you have ZERO room to bitch. Nadda, zip, zilch.

This isn't hard.
Click to expand...

So when people without insurance walk into the ER and are having a heart attack, should they be refused service?

Same concept. In this case the "fire department" (I have a hard time calling that group of yahoos one) could have sent them a giant bill and did the right thing.
 
What would have happened had there been a death involved in this?
 
Nate505 said:
So when people without insurance walk into the ER and are having a heart attack, should they be refused service?

Same concept. In this case the "fire department" (I have a hard time calling that group of yahoos one) could have sent them a giant bill and did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Little bit different. Check that, it's night and day different. It's posted everywhere in the hospital, and is well known that no matter what, you can get care regardless of income or insurance. This, on the other hand, has been a law for years. He knew it, the fire department knew it. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
 
TroutBum said:
Little bit different. Check that, it's night and day different. It's posted everywhere in the hospital, and is well known that no matter what, you can get care regardless of income or insurance. This, on the other hand, has been a law for years. He knew it, the fire department knew it. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Click to expand...

It may be legally different but the moral principle is the same. Why should a hospital treat an otherwise healthy 22 year old who refused to get insurance offered by his work to save $20 on each paycheck if he gets hit by a truck and sent into the emergency room? In this case they do but he doesn't get off scott free. He either has to pay the bill or go in debt or declare bankruptcy. They fire department could have done the same thing here. Instead they just stood around and watched while someone's house burnt to the ground. I thought they were supposed to stop things like that.
 
The best way to protect the house next door that had paid the fee would have been to put out the fire at the house that hadn't paid the fee. Fires have an uncanny ability to spread and get out of control.
 
It'd be interesting to know what the ramifications of this would have been if Tennessee had a good samaritan law. By that token, the firemen would have been legally obligated to have hosed the house down. Morally I think they were obligated anyway, but I digress.
 
chemdude1232 said:
It'd be interesting to know what the ramifications of this would have been if Tennessee had a good samaritan law. By that token, the firemen would have been legally obligated to have hosed the house down. Morally I think they were obligated anyway, but I digress.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, BTW. Had I been on the fire crew, I would've hosed down the house. However, this guy has no room to stand as far as complaints go, and the death of his dogs is on his hands, not the fire department. Pay your bill, and none of this happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top