Fire sale: Fire Department lets home burn over $75.00 fee.

I expect that a fund will be set up to receive donations to help the owner replace his home. I wouldn't be surprised if people replaced the grandchildren's three dogs and one cat that will killed in the fire.

This will demonstrate community instead of Ayn Rand's ideas about individualism.

BBB

Assertion.

People often pay for services in advance of actually needing them, out of prudence.

Assertion. Medical insurance works the same way - you are highly unlikely to get sick or injured in any single year - yet the vast majority of people desire and pay for the insurance anyway. Your theory says that this shouldn't be happening, but it clearly is.

Assertion, see above. This is not born out by real-world examples - only by your theories.

No, you are appealing to extremes. Nobody proposed a system in which only those whose houses are on fire pay, but that's what you are arguing would exist if people aren't forced to watch their house burn down. Reality doesn't support this, however - just your theory.

Neither am I. However, your original post seems to posit that the FD did the correct thing by allowing his house to burn down. They did not do the correct thing, morally or ethically, and certainly not financially; they could have set up a system to fully cover their costs while ensuring that houses don't burn down.

I think this is a perfect example to discuss the ideological debate splitting the country. If enough folks want this kind of individualist pay-as-you-go society (or lack of "society") and vote accordingly then this is precisely what we'll get. I don't have any problem with people really wanting to live like this - just don't complain when something happens that isn't the way you wanted it to be.

Why did he assume they'd put it out?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Assertion.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

People often pay for services in advance of actually needing them, out of prudence.

Indeed they do -- when they don't have the option of paying for those services in the event that they need them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Assertion. Medical insurance works the same way - you are highly unlikely to get sick or injured in any single year - yet the vast majority of people desire and pay for the insurance anyway. Your theory says that this shouldn't be happening, but it clearly is.

No, your theory says that this shouldn't be happening, because your theory allows for people to buy insurance when they get sick, just as you think Mr. Crainick should be allowed to pay for fire services whenever he has a fire. That's the unrealistic scenario here.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Assertion, see above. This is not born out by real-world examples - only by your theories.

See above.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, you are appealing to extremes. Nobody proposed a system in which only those whose houses are on fire pay, but that's what you are arguing would exist if people aren't forced to watch their house burn down. Reality doesn't support this, however - just your theory.

I'm not sure how my theorizing is a whole lot different from your theorizing about a scenario where people can pay for fire services whenever they have a fire, except that my theorizing is much more reasonable.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Neither am I. However, your original post seems to posit that the FD did the correct thing by allowing his house to burn down. They did not do the correct thing, morally or ethically, and certainly not financially; they could have set up a system to fully cover their costs while ensuring that houses don't burn down.

Of course the fire department did the correct thing. If it allowed an exception for Mr. Crainick, it would have had to allow an exception for everyone else.

That would have spelled an end for the fire department, since everyone would have simply emulated Mr. Crainick's example.

In this case, the rule was much more important than the house.

Assertion. Medical insurance works the same way - you are highly unlikely to get sick or injured in any single year - yet the vast majority of people desire and pay for the insurance anyway. Your theory says that this shouldn't be happening, but it clearly is.

Me neither.

cyclo wrote:

Assertion. Medical insurance works the same way - you are highly unlikely to get sick or injured in any single year - yet the vast majority of people desire and pay for the insurance anyway. Your theory says that this shouldn't be happening, but it clearly is.

Not really. The vast majority of people with insurance get it through their employment or the government. The vast majority of people who have to pay the cost themselves are uninsured.

It will be interesting to see how his homeowner's insurance policy plays into all this. When the huge claim is filed, will they pay it or sue both the homeowner and town for negligence?

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."

The majority of people demand it (insurance) as a condition of employment; it is part of their compensation by any assessment you choose to use.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The majority of people demand it (insurance) as a condition of employment; it is part of their compensation by any assessment you choose to use.

Cycloptichorn

Really?

bullshit.

right now most adults are happy to be employed.

Most adults wouldn't consider a job that didn't provide health insurance unless they cannot find one that does.

so we're just talking theory then...?

My theory called for charging a large and punitive rate for paying for services on the spot, instead of in advance. This is a strong deterrent for waiting until you need the service to pay for it, and it has the added bonus of avoiding a large loss of property and value for the entire community.