So, based on the fire dept outraged here, we should hate the government flood insurance program!!!!

[KansasVoter]

Should someone who decided not to buy flood insurance, should be paid by the government flood insurance program after a flood because it was just a mistake that they did not pay flood insurance? Hell, it is not fair they lose their house because they did not pay for coverage. Why not pay for their house? They just make a small mistake. So you really want someone to lose their house for making a small mistake? I guess the government should just replace the house because the person forgot to pay for insurance?

This is even worse because the flooded person lost everything and has no insurance company to rebuild their house. At least the man who lost his house to the fire has insurance to rebuild the house. The poor person who did not buy flood insurance lost everything.

The FD in that county charged $75 for fire protection insurance!!! If you do not pay you are not covered!

Write your senators and demand they pay for all flooded houses even ones who do not buy into the government flood insurance program!

It is only fair!!!! The evil government requires you to pay for insurance to be covered in a flood! THIS MUST STOP!!!!!

Read more about this UNFAIR program here: http://www.floodsmart.gov

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

2. Only insured property was lost. No a life. The flooded house is totally lost with no insurance. FAIL

[sabrina 1]

9. How does someone stop a flood?

This homeowner HAD insurance and he says his insurance corp. has been very good and 'on the ball' as far as covering the damage caused by the fire. Insurance Cos have nothing to do with stopping fires, they help compensate for the damage after the fire. And this FD has just cost them way more than they would have had to pay out had the fire been contained and the damage minimized.

This is NOT about someone not paying insurance.

Is there a 'Flood Dept' somewhere that is trained to deal with floods?

This is not a good analogy.

[KansasVoter]

16. You can't stop a flood......

more reason the government should not require someone to pay for coverage!

[niceypoo]

44. Build an ark

[sabrina 1]

52. But you can stop a fire. More reason why the FD should

have done so. It would have reduced the cost of the Insurance Co. and helped keep the rates down for everyone else.

[TexasObserver]

7. Absurdity is the only argument available to those who favor letting it burn.

[KansasVoter]

11. Please tell me why the government requires flood insurance to pay!!!!

[TexasObserver]

17. Please stop making irrational arguments to prop up your weak position!!!!

[KansasVoter]

20. So should the government rebuild houses for people who did not....

buy flood insurance? YES or NO?

[TexasObserver]

24. I'll not follow you as you chase your tail.

Focus on the fire department issue and stop badgering people about your inane attempt at analogizing to insurance.

If you can't talk about the fire department issue as a free standing issue, work on that until you can.

[KansasVoter]

26. Answer my question whiner!

[TexasObserver]

27. And learn how to spell. The word is "winner!"

[KansasVoter]

28. LOL.......admit you lose. That is OK!

[TexasObserver]

30. I appreciated your acknowledgement I'm a "winner."

I was merely trying to help you with your spelling of the word.

[KansasVoter]

34. Texas explains a lot!

[sabrina 1]

51. Is someone asking the Government to rebuild this homeowners

house?? What are you talking about?

He HAS Insurance. He paid it. They are going to rebuild his house. He is not asking the Government to rebuild it, nor is anyone else.

What he didn't have was a FD willing to help him, and the Insurance Co, by minimizing the damage.

As everyone is trying to tell you, your analogy is a very bad one.

[Hannah Bell]

54. Unlike the "logical" argument that a small city should foot the bill for residents of a larger,

richer county who've never paid for any county fire protection whatsoever, a county that voted 19-1 for this libertarian policy of individual "choice" & has repeatedly shot down proposals to tax itself for fire service over the past 20-plus years.

not to mention a man who already got one recent free fire call & nevertheless continued not to subscribe to the fire service, thinking they'd all be free.

ok, yeah, i see the logic.

[JI7]

3. were they able to stop the Floods from hitting certain homes ?

[quaker bill]

53. Actually that is an argument

raised in much of the post-flood litigation against governments. Trust me, I do this for a living and have the subpoenas to show for it.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

8. LOL........many flood happen every month.

[sandnsea]

13. And people are helped regardless

Do you think they check the flood insurance before they sandbag someone's house?

Seriously, do yourself a favor and stfu. That was a friendly suggestion.

[KansasVoter]

25. Does the government rebuild your house if you did not insurance? WHY NOT???

[backscatter712]

5. Bad analogy: Fire protection is NOT INSURANCE!

Stop bringing up the insurance analogy - firefighting is a service, not insurance. We're not using the insurance model.

It's a service that's ideally funded fully by tax dollars, which protects everyone, or if you want to use the moran model, it's fee-for-service, either paid in advance, or paid after the fact.

In any case, it's a government service that's necessary for public safety, which means that the firefighters should have put the damned fire out, whether the homeowner's paid up or not, and if they're going by the moran model, billed him afterwards, either for the service fee, or for the full cost of the response.

Under no circumstances should we be seeing firefighters standing and watching while a house burns down. Only Republicans think that's a good idea.

[KansasVoter]

6. Yes, the $75 fee paid for protection against fires!!! FAIL!

[backscatter712]

10. That entire model is a fail. The cost of fire protection should have been part of taxes. n/t

[KansasVoter]

12. Why shouldn't flood insurance also????

[whistler162]

48. It is just not in that county or state for the

fire department being villified!

[Hannah Bell]

57. County residents DON'T PAY TAXES TO THE CITY. Why is this so hard to grasp?

The city can't levy taxes on the county.

The county refuses to levy taxes on itself to fund fire protection.

The city can't force them to do so.

The county's entire residential fire protection policy consists of allowing its residents to contract, as individuals, with the city for fire service at $75/year.

That's what their reps voted for, 19 to 1.

The city has 2,500 residents who tax themselves to protect lives & property in the city.

The unincorporated county has 15,000 residents.

[sabrina 1]

19. Is the FD an Insurance Co?

That FD has cost the homeowner's Insurance Co. a whole lot more money by not doing their job and containing the fire. I wouldn't be surprised if the Insurance Co. sues the FD. Now they have to pay to completely rebuild the house and for everything of value that was destroyed.

[KansasVoter]

22. Why does the Government require flood premiums paid before the cover a house?

[backscatter712]

31. Fire departments are not insurance companies, nor should they operate by insurance rules.

Their job is to protect lives and property, PERIOD. That job should absolutely not be arbitrarily constrained by rules restricting response to those that paid fees.

It's not insurance, and should not be treated like insurance. It's a government service. Taxes pay for it, and it should be available to everyone.

[Hannah Bell]

55. The city's job is to protect lives & property within the city. Which is 2500 people.

Not in the unincorporated county - 15,000 people.

The county DOESN'T PAY TAXES TO THE CITY. Its residents DON'T PAY TAXES TO THE CITY. Only city residents pay the city taxes that fund operating costs for the fire department.

The county residents pay no taxes whatsoever for residential fire service, and the county doesn't have any residential fire service.

The county's policy is to allow county residents to contract, as individuals, with the city for fire protection at a charge of $75/year, $6.25/month.

The only money the city gets from the county to fund its fire department is from the residents who choose to pay the $75 fee.

Sorry you think it "shouldn't" be this way. Tell it to the county.

[hayu_lol]

66. Sabrina...the city fire department from Kentucky...

was there to protect a neighbor who had paid the fire service fee.

This homeowner, who started this fire, refused to pay the fire service fee. About 3 years ago, this fire department put out a fire at a place this family owned. They had not paid the yearly fee, nor did they ever pay the fee or the costs of putting the fire out. They let this Kentucky town's fire department pay the costs they should have paid but did not.

The residents of the Kentucky city paid the taxes and expenses to support their city fire department. In exchange for the $75/year fee, fire service was extended to Obion County Tennessee residents. Obion County has three service fee fire departments covering them plus two tax supported fire departments. In other words, 32,000 people in Obion County do not have fire service of their own but must rely on outside service for a yearly fee.

No one in Obion County paid for the firetruck that answered this call to protect one of their fee-paying subscribers. The fuel in the truck's tank was paid for by the Kentucky town(population 2500). 75% of the calls answered by this Kentucky town's fire department come from Obion County Tennessee.

The service fee of $75/year is less than I pay for my tax supported and well-equipped, well-trained professional fire dept.here in rural Oregon.

IMHO...the commissioners of Obion County should have volunteered to fight this fire.

[sabrina 1]

68. Thank you.

I don't understand why 32,000 people cannot have a volunteer Dept. of their own. I lived on an Island in NY where there were only approx 3000 year round residents, about 10,000 in the Summer and the FD is all volunteer. They raise funds by holding huge barbecues, ticket sales, dinners etc. and the community supports them enthusiastically. Thousands eg, show up for the yearly barbecue, even non-residents. They have the best equipment, lots of training, ongoing, for the firefighters etc.

They were even able to buy a boat for rescue purposes.

Members can buy cheap insurance in case they are injured on the job, but that's probably the only benefit they get.

With so many more residents, 32,000, I would think they could have a volunteer service in Obion County.

Anyhow, I agree that someone should have been there to fight the fire, and then take care of the bill later. Thanks for the info :-)

[cynatnite]

14. You're house is being broken into, you call the cops, but they won't come...

you didn't pay the $75. You're out of luck.

[KansasVoter]

18. I imagine the county has a sheriff!!! FAIL!

[cynatnite]

21. So, the sheriff won't come out because you failed to pay the fee. n/t

[KansasVoter]

23. You pay COUNTY taxes!! Think much?

[cynatnite]

38. Taxes? OMG, Really? For the sheriff, but not for the fire department...

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cynatnite]

42. TAXES TO PAY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT!

Does that help or do I need to get a crayon and draw a picture?

I don't know why you think hurling names and insults somehow helps your argument. You must be channeling Glenn Beck. You're not alone...he stands with you on this.

[Hannah Bell]

61. The county DOESN'T ASSESS TAXES TO PAY FOR FIRE SERVICE.

How many times does it have to be said?

The county HAS NO RESIDENTIAL FIRE SERVICE.

The county's entire fire policy is: individual residents may contract with the city. or not, as they see fit.

[Hannah Bell]

58. If your city voted not to assess taxes to fund a police force, but instead to let individuals

contract with a neighboring city's police force -- or not, as they chose --

what would you expect to happen?

[G_j]

15. insurance is different, should we have policies that afford us police protection also?

maybe rape or murder insurance?

[tularetom]

29. The government flood insurance program was a good idea in theory

But it is poorly administered, punitive and counterproductive in practice. It's getting late and I don't want to engage in a debate over the merits of this program but believe me, I have much more than a passing familiarity with it, on a personal as well as professional level.

Using it as an analogy for the non responsive fire department is like comparing apples and horse turds.

[KansasVoter]

33. You are wrong as usual! The fire dept charges $75 for coverage.......

and iv you do not pay wyou do not get coverage! Simple!

[tularetom]

37. I told you I'm not gonna get into an argument about this

It's not the same, junior, and I'll tell you why later. I have some fences to repair tomorrow and I have to get an early start.

BTW, there's a spell check box at the bottom of your message window. You should probably use it.

[KansasVoter]

41. LOL......no argument means you have lost, but that is OK.

[Hannah Bell]

59. The CITY fire department is responsive to those living within its service area, who tax themselves

to fund it. That is 2500 people living inside the city limits.

There are 15,000 people living in the unincorporated county. They chose not to tax themselves to fund fire protection.

Instead, they opted to let each resident "choose" whether or not to contract with the city for a $75 fee.

The county is bigger & richer than the city.

But the compassionate folk at DU think the city should pay to cover the county when the county has repeatedly voted down proposals to pay for itself.

[Jamastiene]

32. If there had been a flood, the fire would have been put out.

:crazy:

They are exact opposites.

The $75 was not insurance on the home, btw. It was to pay the firefighters to come put out the fire. Fire protection and flood insurance are NOT the same thing.

Besides, if the government allows homes to be built in floodplains, maybe they should replace people's homes. I have always wondered why they allow that. They don't allow many other things that could be dangerous. It was stupid to allow people to build homes in areas prone to flooding anyhow. So, the answer to your question, in my view, yes, the government should replace their homes and build them new homes in an area that isn't flood prone.

This still isn't anything like fire protection though. There is no such thing as a FLOOD FIGHTER. There ARE fire fighters and it IS possible to fight a fire. Big difference.

[KansasVoter]

35. LOL....imagine the government telling someone where they can and cannot....

build a house on land they own. See how far that gets with people.

[Jamastiene]

65. It gets very far, actually. It is called building codes.

The person who enforces it is known as a building inspector.

You can't just build a house anywhere on land you own. It has to be a certain distance from the sides of the property. It has to be a certain distance from the road, to match with all other houses in the area.

Apparently, it has gotten VERY far with people. Don't believe me? Come to my county and try to build anywhere you want. You'll be visited by the building inspector and told EXACTLY where you "can and cannot build a house."

[Matariki]

36. Only despicable assholes would stand and watch someone's house burn

if they have the means to put it out.

Your analogy is absurd. Attitudes like this will turn us into a third world nation faster than your thread will be unrec'd

[KansasVoter]

39. And only asshole would not rebuild flooded houses for free!!! Damn Them!!!

[Matariki]

50. Are you talking about the national shame that followed Hurricane Katrina?

Seriously, the example you are clinging to is flawed. If you had the means to prevent a flood and yet you stood by and watched people lose their homes, then yes, you are a psychopathic, heartless asshole with zero sense of civics or community. Is that *really* what you want to be defending?

[inna]

43. wow. sarcasm tag missing?

or a truly pathetic post?

[KansasVoter]

45. Wow, how clever! Make that up on your own?? LOL!

[inna]

47. what's wrong with you?

bad day, or... are you on a wrong board?

[Rex]

49. Nothing is wrong with the poster, they simply believe that $75 is worth

more than the potential harm caused by a house on fire. See? Makes perfect sense in bizzaro world.

[Hannah Bell]

62. No, they believe that a city of 2,500 people can't fund a fire department that covers

17,500 people.

[Rex]

46. All this from the fact that they refused to do their jobs over $75.

Pathetic attempt. -1

[Hannah Bell]

63. It;s not their job. Their job is to fight fires within their service area. That's the city,

& any county residents who contract with them.

[quaker bill]

56. Most people I have run into buy flood insurance

at the direction of their mortgage carrier. An owner made more or less bankrupt by a flood with a destroyed home is a rather poor credit risk. It would seem wise in this case that the mortgage provider and the homeowner's insurance underwriter require the fire fees to be paid. I expect they will begin doing so as a result of this incident.

[JoePhilly]

60. Very Weak Analogy: Fire PROTECTION is not Fire INSURANCE

See the difference? PROTECTION is protection from an event, INSURANCE is for after an event occurs.

You can buy both fire and flood INSURANCE. That way, if you have a fire, or a flood, you are covered for your losses.

But you can not purchase FLOOD PROTECTION. During a flood, no one can come and protect your home.

In this particular case, I hope the guy does have Fire INSURANCE. That's sold by an INSURANCE COMPANY.

Under your model, the folks at 9/11 should only respond if you've paid for fire and police, and I guess emergency medical transportation protection too. That how it should work? You have a heart attack, and you call 9/11, but no one comes because you haven't paid some stupid fee?

These events are EXACTLY what taxes are intended to cover.

And on this fee-based model ... what happens when the city screws up the paper work? You call for help, they check the records, which are wrong, and then because of the error, they let your house burn to the ground .... that your plan?

Guess you can sue the city later ... so what if your kids and spouse are dead. Maybe you'll get the city to settle for 100 million. Sure your wife and kids are dead, the local tax payers are out 100 million ... but now people will know to pay that $75!!!

Brilliant plan. Its another example of how the libertarian approach fails when actually examined.

[Hannah Bell]

64. The fee system is WHAT THE COUNTY VOTED FOR. Not the city.

The city taxes its residents for fire protection. It has 2,500 residents.

The unincorporated county has 15,000 residents & voted to allow them to contract with cities, as individuals, for fire protection. Or not, as each individual saw fit.

The county provides no residential fire protection, even though median income in the county is higher than in the city, & the county has a bigger tax base & a bigger population than any of the cities who comp the county.

Presumably that policy is supported by the county residents.

I'm sure the cities would prefer to contract with the county as a whole, or let the county fund its own fire department.

The county declines to do so because it doesn;t want to "force" its residents to pay taxes for fire service. That's a direct quote from one of the commissioners who voted 19-1 for the fee-based system.

[Tsiyu]

67. People seem to be outraged at the firefighters

more than they are enraged at an entire county that decided it did not want to pay for its own protection.

It's okay to be pissed that the firefighters didn't put out the blaze in spite of the contract the homeowner agreed to ("I just thought I was special, and didn't have to abide by the contract!")

No matter how stupid the homeowner, I'd do what I could to put out the fire.

And I'd still be more amazed and pissed at an entire county that voted against its own safety. That voted to just use a small city in another state as its personal "Get out of jail free " card.

I'd help douse the flames while telling the guy he was a freeloading idiot.

It seems some here are incapable of understanding the tremendous financial and safety burden the county placed on this small city. Firefighting is not like changing lightbulbs or mowing right-of-ways. It's dangerous, nasty, dirty, expensive work. The residents of that county chose to just USE another community for that work.

THAT is what led to this place we find ourselves.


You can keep pulling babies out of the creek and crying about the unfairness of it all. But at some point shouldn't you send someone upstream to find out who is throwing the babies in?