http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life

Wow. Great example for a discussion on role of gov't, etc.

Gene Cranick found himself experiencing the Tea Party’s proposed “government a la carte” when he didn’t pay the $75 surcharge to the South Fulton Fire Department. His house caught fire and the fireman did nothing to stop it. Cranick describes his ordeal to Countdown’s Keith Olbermann.

Only Keith Olbermann could turn that bull**** into something against the Tea Party.

F U Tea Party no government mofos.

let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Fo Shizzle's wet dream.....

I thought most places had a policy where if you don't pay the voluntary fee and they have to make a service call, you pay a much steeper price? You know, like insurance. That happened to my mom once. I think the voluntary fee was $50, and she ended up having to pay $350 or so.

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

I'd have probably helped the guy out (but not put any of my men in danger) if I were in charge. But it would have only been because I couldn't watch a guy's house burn when I had the ability to help him.

This policy likely only works in rural areas where the chance of affecting the neighbors and community is minimal. The only problem I have is with the character of the men who had the ability to put it out, not the policy of a govt. to not service those outside of their jurisdiction. They even provide an option to those that they don't have to.

(10-05-2010 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

i don't have a problem with that

Am I to assume that tax cheats and those who pay no taxes at all are banned from receiving any government services? If that's the case, sign me up, otherwise I agree with those who say the FD should have put the fire out and then billed the home owner.

How is this different than not having house, health or car insurance? You can't wait until you have a problem to decide you want to buy in.

Sounds like just another loser looking for a free ride. Doesn't surprise me that Olbermann is talking about it. What a douche.

should've paid the 75 bucks. **** aint free.

(10-05-2010 01:31 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  I thought most places had a policy where if you don't pay the voluntary fee and they have to make a service call, you pay a much steeper price? You know, like insurance. That happened to my mom once. I think the voluntary fee was $50, and she ended up having to pay $350 or so.

That's the policy were I live and those fees are about right, 300 or so per truck.

(10-05-2010 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

Really?? the FD should check a list before rendering aid? It's a crime for a citizen not to render aid... hospitals can't fail to render aid... what if the list is wrong?? I don't have a problem with billing someone for services... but to NOT render aid is crazy. If you want to be a private fire service, fine... but are you telling me that private security would supplant the police??

(10-05-2010 08:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

Really?? the FD should check a list before rendering aid? It's a crime for a citizen not to render aid... hospitals can't fail to render aid... what if the list is wrong?? I don't have a problem with billing someone for services... but to NOT render aid is crazy. If you want to be a private fire service, fine... but are you telling me that private security would supplant the police??

Ummm thats not even close to what I said.

I said they *should have done it* despite the fact that the house was not in their town and the owners elected not to sign up for coverage.

All I said is after the aid was rendered that the full cost of the aid should be charged.

If he has insurance. and If the insurance company knew that the fire dept would let it burn to the ground, his insurance policy would have been much higher than $75.

I think that here in Harris Co. if you need lifeflight or emerg. servs. and you are not a resident, you or your ins. co. is on the hook for the full cost.

Seems to me these people have the right to govern their affairs as they see fit.

maybe he should have just paid the fee pretty simple

(10-05-2010 09:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

Really?? the FD should check a list before rendering aid? It's a crime for a citizen not to render aid... hospitals can't fail to render aid... what if the list is wrong?? I don't have a problem with billing someone for services... but to NOT render aid is crazy. If you want to be a private fire service, fine... but are you telling me that private security would supplant the police??

Ummm thats not even close to what I said.

I said they *should have done it* despite the fact that the house was not in their town and the owners elected not to sign up for coverage.

All I said is after the aid was rendered that the full cost of the aid should be charged.

You weren't the only person in the quote, and clearly the "story" is what I am responding to. The "Really" comment was to the article... I was generally agreeing with you on the payment... and asking you to take it further

my question is...

why is it illegal for a citizen to fail to stop and render aid, or for a hospital to not render aid, but not for a fire department to render aid? Is there not a local fire department? What if you were behind on your property taxes, could the police fail to stop a burglar at your home, or the FD to not put out a fire? What if someone HAD died??

(10-06-2010 09:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 09:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 12:17 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  let me just say that these people sound absolutely ridiculous. the youngest son was burning trash? or how about his quote, "we wasn't on their list?" That has little bearing here, but i just thought i'd add that.

anyway, i see no problem with this. that fee is probably in lieu of taxes for these types of services. if he wanted the service he should've paid the fee. not difficult

Personally, I think they should have come put out the fire and then charged them for the full cost (Fuel, Salaries, maintenance, water, equipment, and the like). If the family did not pay up (or agree to a payment plan) then put a lien on the house.

Why do I think this? Just because someone does not 'deserve' help does not mean you don't give it. But you can't just make it free to fight a fire.

I don't think the FD had an obligation to do it, but they should have done it.

Really?? the FD should check a list before rendering aid? It's a crime for a citizen not to render aid... hospitals can't fail to render aid... what if the list is wrong?? I don't have a problem with billing someone for services... but to NOT render aid is crazy. If you want to be a private fire service, fine... but are you telling me that private security would supplant the police??

Ummm thats not even close to what I said.

I said they *should have done it* despite the fact that the house was not in their town and the owners elected not to sign up for coverage.

All I said is after the aid was rendered that the full cost of the aid should be charged.

You weren't the only person in the quote, and clearly the "story" is what I am responding to. The "Really" comment was to the article... I was generally agreeing with you on the payment... and asking you to take it further

my question is...

why is it illegal for a citizen to fail to stop and render aid, or for a hospital to not render aid, but not for a fire department to render aid? Is there not a local fire department? What if you were behind on your property taxes, could the police fail to stop a burglar at your home, or the FD to not put out a fire? What if someone HAD died??

My bad, I just assumed that because I was the 'last' person in the quote that you were addressing me.

To answer your question:

A hospital has to render aid but one in a neighboring city does not have to send an ambulance to your home. A Citizen does not have to charge into a burning Building.

The fire department here allows people outside of their jurisdiction to pay for service because there is no FD outside whatever town or county they are in. This was not somebody within their town limits who was behind on taxes.

"Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee."

Its the South Fulton Fire Department, not the county one.

I'm with you that they were asses for not putting it out, but it's not a crime to be an ass (just look at congress).

Another fair question is what if the fire fighters made a mistake and someone got hurt (either a fire fighter or a pedestrian) and then sued the hell out of the FD because this was not even part of their zone of authority and they were acting.