If you pay attention to the news you probably heard about this story in Tennessee:
"Firefighters Watch As House Burns To The Ground"
Gene Cranick, a homeowner in Obion County, TN had an emergency. His home caught on fire and to make his situation worse, the South Fulton Fire Department came out to the site only to make sure the next door house didn’t catch on fire as well. They sat there while his house burned to the ground. He pleaded with them to put it out, even offering money. But they refused. And they were right to do so.
The reason assistance was refused is because Mr. Cranick had a choice to pay annual dues so that he would receive fire services if needed. He decided that the $75 per year that the South Fulton Fire Department requested so that they could extend services to his residence would be better spent elsewhere. He chose not to pay (unlike his neighbor), and suffered the consequences.
Media outlets railed against the fire department, asking how can an organization be so heartless? One Liberal pundit asked if this is what a Libertarian world would look like (ignoring the fact that this was a publicly run Fire Department). The South Fulton Fire Department was demonized, even though this wasn’t even their territory. A few decades ago, this wouldn’t have been news as there was no service to these parts and thus, no fire department would have shown up. But the fire department saw a need and offered their services for a very reasonable price. Gene Cranick just decided not to insure.
The real story out of all this is how as a nation we’ve passed the buck on personal responsibility. We jump at the emotional aspect of any situation without looking at logic and consequence. Would insurance (of any kind) actually work for Americans if benefits were paid without the collective premiums prepaid? Do you think the South Fulton Fire Department would collect enough revenue the following year if its residents knew that they would be bailed out even if they didn’t pay their dues? Finally, did we ever stop and think about the firefighters putting their lives on the line for someone else’s property that they themselves don’t see it’s valued worth at $75? Would you put your life on the line for something worth less than $75? I know I wouldn’t.
With such a lack of personal responsibility, it’s no wonder our nation is going bankrupt in the name of entitlement.
Don't get me wrong, I wish this dude's house hadn't burned down, but to not pay 75$ ? Comon! Your house isnt worth 75$ to you?! I bet he'll pay the fee for his next house.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do think our culture enables people way too much. At some point were going to have to dissapate social security and other entitilement programs to save the country as a whole.
like Chris Rock said, it shouldn't be called "insurance"...it should be called "in case sh**" i hate to think how much i've paid for auto/home/life insurance over the past 11 years, but the day you stop paying on it is the day you need it.
ReplyDeleteI really struggle with this. On the one hand, I would like to say that basic human decency and compassion should have allowed for the firefighters to extinguish the blaze. A man calling for help, and people having the necessary equipment to potentially aid him, but not doing so simply for financial reasons...this is the capitalistic profits before people agenda that I despise and that serves to oppress.
ReplyDeleteAfter my initial reaction, however, I took a step back and realized that this man is only losing his worldly possessions. His material things are no more his, and he chose not to take the necessary precautions ahead of time to ensure that he could save them. I'm sure that if his life (or the lives of friends and family) were also at risk, that the firefighters would have done their best to save him.
If we start aiding people who don't feed into the system out of personal choice, and out of a lack of caring, then yes...they ought not be helped when services they don't pay for aren't given to them. If I need to get downtown for a job interview, but am running late, and didn't pay for a metro card, is the state obligated to pay for my card simply because it would give me a job? No. I didn't plan ahead to take care of my own personal things, and I shouldn't be recieving goods or services that I did not apply/pay for.
That being said, I don't believe that this is the case with social welfare programs. There may be some people who are genuinely not trying and are abusing the system, but the system as a whole seeks to help these individuals. There are case workers trying to find people jobs, there are food stamp programs so that people don't go hungry, there are welfare programs so that people can put a roof over their children's heads. These people are suffering from a systemic oppression that continually keeps the impoverished in the lowest brackets of society. These social welfare programs are not for those who have options that they are choosing not to pursue, they are for those who have no other place to turn.
FYI - The firefighters did confirm that no one was in the house
ReplyDeleteI understand that he was told the conditions of their service and he chose not to pay at the time. But when he offered to give them money to stop the fire, did it happen to be $75? Maybe it was too late by then. But when the water company comes to shut off your water they always give you one more chance to pay. It's true, people should just pay when it's time and shouldn't sit back until it's about to be taken away but when it comes to somebody's home...where was the compassion?
ReplyDeleteThey were well within their legal rights not to stop the fire. But is it okay? All I know is that if my mom's house were to catch fire then it would be put out as soon as possible, no questions asked. And I'm sure if you were to live under those rules you would find your house well worth $75 but you would be not be happy every time you went to pay it.
Here is the real problem - if the firefighters put out this fire out of compassion, then why wouldn't everyone else in the area think "well I guess I don't have to pay the $75 because this guy didn't and they still helped him!" Next thing you know, no one is paying and the fire department doesn't have enough money to exist anymore. Now no one has the fire department to depend on. Sure, it seems cold and heartless that they let the house burn down, but what could they do? Unfortunately we live in a world where it is costs money to keep a fire department running, but that's the way it is. If this man couldn't see the use in helping maintain a fire department, then he doesn't deserve their services. End of story.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, they were well within their rights to do it. But people tend to think of firefighters as heroes - they come into a dangerous situation, do the best they can, save lives, homes and just in general do the right thing. I guess I feel bad for the firefighters in this community because by just standing there and saying, "It's too late to pay now" they don't seem like heroes anymore. Businessmen, yes. Heroes? No.
ReplyDeleteThey can't be heroes without having a means to be a hero. AKA - they can't be heroes by putting out fires if they don't have the moeny to have the equipment to put out the fires. No money = no heroes.
ReplyDeleteYep, and quite frankly I'm not happy with the homeowner because his lack of responsibility put the fire department in this awkward position. Just like Brian said (and hopefully I communicated well in my post), if they put out this fire I GUARANTEE revenues in 2011 go down and now they can't help more people.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world, stuff costs money. To ask for and receive payment for a service doesn't make it any less respectable.
"if you're good at something never do it for free"
ReplyDelete- the Joker
I think a batman reference is perfectly in order here because like Brian said, "They can't be heroes without having a means to be a hero."
Just like Batman rich AND a hero, BOOM.
Well I love that you quoted a VILLAIN to support an argument for what is right.
ReplyDeleteI understand they need the money and I understand that the people are supposed to pay. I don't find the fire department at fault. The whole situation just don't feel right though.
The larger issue for me is whether we should have pay for play public utilities. When it puts health of many at risk, I say no. I believe the government is entitled to protect its people, especially from themselves. This is why we have taxes. Should he have had a choice to pay or not to pay when he was potentially putting his life and the lives of all those around him in jeopardy? I realize I may be in the minority here, but I really don't think so.
ReplyDelete