It should come as no shock to you, but I fully support this stance.

That's how insurance works. How is this any different from medical insurance? They said that they would rescue lives.

The point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it out over a wide time and populus. If you allow people to buy insurance only when they need it, it's not insurance -- it's cheap cheap service.

That's insane. The most amazing part is that they wouldn't even take his money on the spot.

"The department said it will fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger." from the article

"So if you owe back taxes, will they kick you out of a hospital emergency room in Missouri, too?" - Craig "Ace" Froehle

Craig- is your comment fair given the fire department's statement? I think "emergency room" clouds the issue between life threatening and non life threatening. Also, mentioning taxes clouds another issue: this service was not covered by taxes there. If you have a service that is covered by taxes somewhere else, are you then required to provided it to all comers on any terms?

Something *is* very wrong here - Bibaldo should have offered to pay for the entire bill if he really wanted his garage to be saved, since he wasn't a member. Anything less would be expecting someone else to take responsibility for a situation that was his.

Regarding Stephen's point, firefighting services are not comparable to "insurance." Insurance reimburses the policy-owner for a loss -- firefighting helps prevent a loss. While compatible and complimentary, the two are fundamentally different.

Regarding Tom's question about my analogy to a hospital emergency room, yes, it's appropriate. Just as not all ER patients have life-threatening conditions, not all property fires are life-threatening. Yet, hospitals cannot legally turn away those seeking help at their emergency rooms regardless of the mortal risk posed by the illness.

But these issues beg the larger question of the role of governmental and quasi-governmental services in society. Some fundamentally believe that there should be no services provided to those who cannot pay for them. To those individuals, only pure markets should handle all aspects of life. Of course, we know that this is a foolish, short-sighted view, for as soon as we leave the most needy of society to the extremes of destitution, the standard of living for everyone eventually suffers. Society after society have learned this lesson, so there's really no point in having to re-learn it through trial and significant error. While I'm far from condoning socialism, there needs to be a balance between pay-for-service, a short-term satisficing perspective, and social-support, which is essential to long-term societal stability.

But more fundamentally, I think this story goes against human nature in general and firefighter nature more specifically. I had always assumed that firefighters were motivated by the needs of the public rather than some profit or fiscal outcomes. While I understand the need to support the firefighters' operations with financial income, why they would decline to help even when payment was offered seems to me to go beyond a principaled stand and approach an almost mercenary-like mentality that shouldn't, in my view, be present in those serving the public.

At the least, this should motivate the local government to establish a tax-based fire company, for the current system is obviously inadequate to meet the needs of the community.

Craig, that's a very limited view of insurance.

The bottom line is that, in this case, people are paying a nominal (by comparison) amount to protect against losing their homes. The point of intervention (i.e. before by protection or after via compensation) is irrelevant. By doing this, people are spreading the total cost of fire-protection over the entire paying community. This is insurance.

You seem to further confuse the matter by introducing a "can't pay for it” argument. If they couldn't pay for it, that's a separate matter. In these cases, it might make sense for the government/entity to prearrange payment (or lack thereof) for the service. That's completely different from allowing someone to pay the "insurance" price for the "retail" service. Furthermore, there was no mention that the person couldn’t just that they didn’t (which would be the obvious economic choice to maximize one’s own benefits).

I agree with your last statement that a tax-based fire company would be a better and less-confusing system.

Yes, it sucks, but what is your alternative in this case? I don’t mean to be flippant but it sort of sounds like you’re advocating a giant tip-jar mentality. By that I mean “pay your dues if you feel like it, but don’t won’t; we’ll still save your house if you don’t.”

"By doing this, people are spreading the total cost of fire-protection over the entire paying community. This is insurance."

Stephen, taxpayers all spread the total cost of a military over the entire "paying community," so you would categorize the military as "insurance?" That seems a bit of a stretch. Same with national health research, or federally funded space exploration, or road repair. Beyond that, you're simply incorrect: insurance in no way PREVENTS you from losing your home. It merely compensates you for your loss IF you lose your home (or it's damaged). There's a significant and meaningful difference between prevention and compensation -- I don't understand why you think those concepts are equivalent.

And no, I don't advocate a giant tip-jar approach. Some things are best left to markets. Some things are better handled through governments. Knowing when which is which is the objective.

Craig,

First -- it's clear that I didn't mean that to be the *only* thing that meant insurance.

Second -- find me a definition of insurance that *doesn't* include prevention and I'll gladly eat my words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurance
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/insurance
http://www.answers.com/insurance&r=67

You still didn't answer my question -- what should they have done in that case? You'll get no arguments that governmental control over something like this is cleaner and simpler. However, if they've already made the choice to forgo that, they've got to let houses burn in cases like this lest the whole system break down.

Stephen, per Wikipedia: "Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of potential financial loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a potential loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium and duty of care."

I don't see anything that implies prevention there. You may have meant insurance in the generic sense; I meant it in the business sense (insurance companies generally don't also sell "prevention" services under the rubrick of 'insurance').

What do I think they should have done in this case? My opinion is that they should have saved the building and car and said to the guy immediately afterwards, "Look, you're new here...in case you didn't know, we work on a membership basis. We just saved your structure and vehicle, so we can bill you for our expenses today or you can become a member right now."

Given that the property owner TRIED to pay them DURING the fire, I think that would have satisfied everyone -- the firefighters would have gotten their money and the new tenant would have had his property saved.

But now, not only do we have a bunch of firefighters that look more like mercenaries than dedicated emergency personnel, you have lost property (which puts an unnecessary economic hardship on the community, albeit focused on one person) and hard feelings (I bet that the guy isn't going to pay them anything now...I know I wouldn't) that could have easily been gratitude and respect instead.

In a nutshell, instead of taking a bad situation and making it mutually beneficial, they acted stupidly (although I'm sure they like to think of it as being "principled") and made it worse for everyone. Economics and social policies aside, that's just foolish.

Yes, I meant insurane as a philosophical concept. However, even by the Wikipedia definition it fits the bill.

"a form of risk managemnet primarily used to hedge against the risk of potential loss"

You buy a membership into the fire club to hedge against the risk of losing your home.

Again, they didn't try to pay them for SERVICES rendered. They tried to pay the dues which, by their very nature, are the diversified risk of it happening. The difference? It's like saying to the roulette dealer AFTER the fact, "I'd like to put $75 on 13."

I know that it sucks, but if you don't take a hard stance in situations like this, everyone loses. People are smarter than you give them credit for. They quickly learn that they don't have to pay their dues unless they need the service.

"You buy a membership into the fire club to hedge against the risk of losing your home."

Again, financial risk-hedging is NOT the same as prevention. Risk-hedging doesn't lower the chance of the bad thing happening (that's prevention), it merely helps offset the financial or other effects should that bad thing actually occur.

Regarding your general approach to this situation, I would hate to exist in a mind as cynical as yours. While I have no problem assuming that people are often stupid and sometimes cruel, to base everything on the presumption of deceit, greed, and selfishness seems like a very depressing way to live. You may call your perspective "being realistic," but without altruism, compassion, and occasional forgiveness, this world would be considerably worse off than it is.

That’s interesting -- I think that we’re getting to the root of the difference between your more liberal approach and my more libertarian approach. While you find my mind cynical, I find it just as sad that you live in a world where so many people are so stupid such as to need your protection. What you refer to as greed I call self-interested ambition. The more liberal approach oft times robs people of this ambition.

Furthermore, that’s not to say that I live in a world without compassion, charity, etc. It’s just that I save them for people who truly need it. For instance, in the above example I would have been all for establishing a minimum income/net worth level under which people would have qualified for subsidized service. I just don’t believe that the rules work if people are afforded the option to buy the coverage only when they need its benefits. I think that such a system is doomed to failure.

As for the “what is insurance” thread, I can only assume that you’re actively trying not to see the obvious. Risk hedging is just that. Its purpose is to protect your portfolio from tanking. Take, for example, the concept of a put. Let’s say that your portfolio consist of 1000 shares of Microsoft with a current value of $26 per share. However, for tax purposes you can’t sell the stock for another month. In a month, you’d like to buy a $25k car. What do you do? You buy insurance that your portfolio won’t dip below 25k. You buy puts. By purchasing puts to offset your shares you are preventing your portfolio from dipping below 25k. That’s the whole point. The concept of investing stems from looking at your portfolio not individual assets within. You use these techniques to prevent your portfolio's value from lessening.

"What you refer to as greed I call self-interested ambition."

Ah, the old Ayn Rand "objectivism" approach to life -- if everyone looks out only for himself, then everyone's taken care of. Unfortunately, societies old and new, large and small have squarely rejected that extremist philosophy, as it divorces itself from the realities of human diversity (not everyone is capable of taking care of himself at all times) and devalues many of the positive qualities that distinguish humanity, however slimly, from the rest (or at least the majority) of the animal kingdom.

"I just don’t believe that the rules work if people are afforded the option to buy the coverage only when they need its benefits."

Did you not read the statement in the story where the property owner basically said he had no knowledge of the membership obligation, so therefore he had no advance opportunity to buy the coverage prior to the event. Or, consistent with what I still believe is a rather cynical view on the world, perhaps you simply assume he was lying.

"You buy insurance that your portfolio won’t dip below 25k. You buy puts. By purchasing puts to offset your shares you are preventing your portfolio from dipping below 25k."

Sure, that's insurance. It protects your net financial situation from suffering due to a possible event. "Prevention" is entirely different, and in your example would be something that kept the *stock* price from going below a certain level (that's the aforementioned event). Insurance compensates for something bad happening; prevention lowers the chance that that bad thing will happen. Life insurance pays your family in case you die; preventive medicine keeps you from dying. I'm not sure how it benefits your POV to equate risk-hedging with risk-prevention since they manifest themselves so utterly differently.

"If everyone looks out for himself, then everyone's taken care of.

You seem to have oh so conveniently glanced over the part where I said that I would support people taking care of each other.

I would have been all for establishing a minimum income/net worth level under which people would have qualified for subsidized service.

My point was simply that a system works best when rules are put in place and rules are followed. People aren't as stupid as you believe them to be. They’re actually pretty darn good at maximizing. I’m sorry that I don’t have the same elitist attitude that you have. In that respect the liberal PR has been incredibly successful; somehow they’ve turned “You’re too stupid to look out for yourself” into “We care.”

It should also be noted that this incident has probably brought enough awareness to the situation so as force the rest of the community to evaluate whether or not fire-prevention insurance is worth it to them. The result is that the fire department will have the means to prevent fires well into the future.

As for the “What does insurance mean” thing -- I am simply out of words. I don’t know what to say when someone disputes the textbook definition of insurance.

From Websters:

“2: a means of guaranteeing protection or safety”

"I don’t know what to say when someone disputes the textbook definition of insurance."

Well, you don't generally purchase the textbook definition of insurance, you purchase the industry definition of insurance. And that industry definition has little to do with preventing disasters. If you doubt that, call up your insurance salesman and ask him what part of your policy actually reduces the probability that your house will catch on fire, that your car will be hit, or your possessions will be stolen. I'm quite confident what he will say.

I think you already provided all the explanation needed for your off-kilter sensibility when you stated your affiliation with Libertarianism. Acting on an extremist philosophy generally doesn't result in positive outcomes, except for maybe a tiny minority who most likely don't need help anyway.

My affiliation? I believe I said "my more libertarian view." If you want off-kilter and extreme you're looking for the other Stephen Speicher. Now *he* might be the extremist that you're hoping to brand. He's (from my limited searches) an actual objectivist. He participates in Ayn Rand clubs, etc. If you think that I'm extreme because I think that rules should be set up to encourage people to do the right thing, you'd LOVE him. ;)