|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 7, 2011 19:31:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I was reading this on Yahoo last night. The comments were horrible.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Dec 7, 2011 20:09:05 GMT -5
Aww shit, not again...
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 7, 2011 20:14:02 GMT -5
Wow I am so enjoying rage that I could get more of it!
Ironbite-I think I need to get to a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 7, 2011 20:17:35 GMT -5
If that were the situation where one lived, one would make damn sure to pay the fee. I don't have a lot of sympathy in this case, although I think the circumstance should not exist in the first place. Fire, like police and ambulance, are emergency services that I believe should be paid for out of taxes automatically at a state or federal level.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 7, 2011 20:28:43 GMT -5
And that's the rub. There shouldn't be a need for a subscription in the first place if we had a reasonable tax rate that everyone pays. Instead, we get shit like this.
Ironbite-I'd find out where this guy lives and burn his house down to see how he likes it but I'm just not that vindictive.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 7, 2011 20:35:32 GMT -5
From the last time around, I know the comeback to those who suggest putting out the fire and then charging the fee would just encourage people to not pay the fee until their houses are on fire. So how about charging them afterwards and then adding a sufficiently massive penalty?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 7, 2011 20:39:37 GMT -5
Or how about not charging a fee at all?
Or do I get the right to scream and rage when someone from out of state drives on roads I paid taxes to upkeep?
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 7, 2011 20:56:13 GMT -5
Pfft, altruism is for namby-pamby socialists. /Ayn Rand
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 7, 2011 21:22:52 GMT -5
I'm having deja vu.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Dec 8, 2011 5:29:46 GMT -5
Under capitalism, there is no real difference between fire departments and insurance companies. In both cases, a person is paying another person to protect their capital.
Sure, in one case, you get an indemnity for something that has already been lost, and in the other, you prevent the loss altogether. But such practical considerations are so passé, and so is the entire notion of "waste". I mean, what's next? Abandon planned obsolescence? Stop wasting natural resources by shipping your products on the other side of the globe, when it's so much more profitable than to satisfy the local demand?
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Dec 8, 2011 11:36:51 GMT -5
Under capitalism, there is no real difference between fire departments and insurance companies. In both cases, a person is paying another person to protect their capital. Here's a kicker for you: Their homeowner's insurance likely will not pay for this claim, due tot he fact that they hadn't paid the fee which would have allowed the firefighters to save the structure. Also because most homeowner's insurance is a scam anyways.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 8, 2011 14:21:46 GMT -5
Under capitalism, there is no real difference between fire departments and insurance companies. In both cases, a person is paying another person to protect their capital. Here's a kicker for you: Their homeowner's insurance likely will not pay for this claim, due tot he fact that they hadn't paid the fee which would have allowed the firefighters to save the structure. Also because most homeowner's insurance is a scam anyways. Insurance as a whole is a scam. Insurance companies don’t make money by paying out. Their profit motive is to deny service wherever possible.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Dec 8, 2011 16:28:11 GMT -5
Here's a kicker for you: Their homeowner's insurance likely will not pay for this claim, due tot he fact that they hadn't paid the fee which would have allowed the firefighters to save the structure. Also because most homeowner's insurance is a scam anyways. Insurance as a whole is a scam. Insurance companies don’t make money by paying out. Their profit motive is to deny service wherever possible. And I agree with that, but I have had far more issues with homeowner's insurance than I have with any other (and I've used all of them in the last several months)
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 8, 2011 16:59:17 GMT -5
Insurance as a whole is a scam. Insurance companies don’t make money by paying out. Their profit motive is to deny service wherever possible. And I agree with that, but I have had far more issues with homeowner's insurance than I have with any other (and I've used all of them in the last several months) Well, you have more practical experience than I do anyways. The only thing I got going for me is some life insurance. Kind of makes me feel like George Bailey from It’s a Wonderful Life, actually. Except I never saved my kid brother from drowning, married my sweetheart, or saved the local Building and Loan from mean old Mr. Potter.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 8, 2011 17:08:17 GMT -5
Because if you're gay, it's just as bad as burning someone's house down. Even some comments that are outraged by this story are full of stupid. There's a reason flamboyant gays are called "flaming", after all.
|
|