Some people will never learn. Another resident in the same county, Obion County, had her trailer burn down because she hadn't paid the mandatory fee to the fire department of neighboring South Fulton.
Let's recap: Obion is too small for its own fire department. Nearby South Fulton is willing to respond to fire calls there, if its residents pay a $75 fee each year.
Like it or not, you'd think Vicky Bell would have paid the fee after reading about Gene Crasnick. Crasnick's house burned down and the fire department didn't intervene because he hadn't paid the fee.
Now the same thing happened to Bell's trailer.
Here's the bottom line: when someone tells you "if you don't do this, this might happen" and you still don't do it, then you are accepting the consequences.
Especially, the second time around. Bell had warning. She chose to gamble that her trailer would never catch fire, she lost.
It's unfortunate (and again, if people were in danger the firefighters would have helped) but the system wouldn't work any other way.
You can't charge people after the fact because it would still probably not be enough to cover expenses from fighting the fire, because the fire department costs money just to operate, waiting for a fire.
And if you charged an exorbitant fee, these poor rubes wouldn't be able to pay it.
It comes back to the debate which is tearing apart our country right now: the responsibilities of the individual versus the responsibilities of the society to aid the individual.
We have become way to reliant on others and we need to restore personal responsibility.
4 comments:
So it follows that you must support the ideas behind Romneycare and Obamacare which require people to buy health insurance and not get a free ride, which free ride bankrupts the system. Just like the fire department you're describing, it costs alot of $ to maintain hospitals and if people only pay when needed, the system fails.
I know that the GOP hates "mandates" but isn't this requisite $75 fee just that?
Paul like you I believe in personal responsibility, and that's why I opposed the bailouts and solidly agree with Republicans about labor unions. But these idiots not buying fire coverage - especially the second time this happened - just underscores my view that many people make bad decisions and it's harmful for society to always sit back and allow terrible things to happen, especially when health or safety are involved.
And nothing happens in a vacuum. I don't think either of us wants our neighbor's home burning down, and nor do we need sick people without insurance coughing on us on NJ Transit/Metro North or their sick and unmedicated kids in classrooms with your children. Like you said about the fire, it's very unfortunate, but if we go too far in the direction of personal responsibility, we're not really serving the common good.
I believe in letting people's homes burn down if they don't pay the fire fee. And I believe in people dying in the streets if they don't have health insurance or can't pay for medical care. Sort of.
But, I do agree if we are going to have national healthcare we need to have the individual mandate, it can't work without it.
There are some major differences, though. Lives are not at stake in the fire example, they would fight the fire to save a life. This fire system is not so prohibitive that many people can't afford it. Even for hicks in Tennessee, $75 should be affordable.
I see your point, but health care is a lot more complex but than this fire system. And I don't think it's immoral to let someone's house burn down. I do think it's immoral to let people die without treating them.
But I am still against nationalized health care. I am in favor of private insurance, but think we need to do a better job of controlling costs in the system (ridding it of fraud) to make it more affordable for poorer individuals.
I understand your points, which are certainly fair. In another life I did some defense work for a huge pharmaceutical company re: Medicare and Medicaid fraud allegations, and I can tell you that we can do a much better job of preventing that.
I agree with your morality distinction but as you point out re: health care, these issues are complex. One of the main reasons I was angry with the fire department re: the first case was that I understood that they knowingly let animals die in the fire. I'm admittedly a big animal rights guy and I know not everyone is, but to me it's immoral to let a living creature suffer and die when you can stop it. Obviously, legality and morality are not the same, but if I were outside that house with fire equipment I'd save the animals regardless of whether the a-hole owner paid the fee.
I agree with you about the animals, I certainly would want them to be saved in that specific instance.
But in the broader sense, I agree with letting people suffer the consequences of their own actions.
It's called "tough love" and in some cases people need to learn their lessons.
Post a Comment