Reply #103: No, that would not be the practical effect. Non-subscribers who pay one-time costs would pay more.

[BzaDem]

"What is wrong with going to a total fee for services rendered system for everyone then if that's so great for the people in Obion county?"

Your question is really the general question of why does insurance exist in the first place. In general, it has to do with the marginal utility of income. From an expected value perspective (assuming each dollar of income has equal value to a person), there would never be the point to insurance. Paying a small monthly fee is mathematically equivalent to paying a high fee with low probability.

The reason that there still IS insurance, despite this perspective, is that the marginal utility of income goes down as income rises. In other words, my first 50 thousand dollars is worth more to me than the difference in value between 50 and 100. Or, similarly, the value to a millionaire is greater than the difference in value between a million and two million.

In terms of insurance, this means that it is much better for the customer to be able to part with only $75 dollars every month (since the utility of that extra $75 is minimal), than it is to pay a high fee with a low probability. Because in the low probability that you have to pay the high fee, the high fee is a MUCH higher reduction in utility, even when the low probability is taken into account.

So in summary, having taxes pay for fire protection is OPTIMAL for the customer. But when this is impossible (as in this case), the next best route (charging a fee) is the route to take.