ATTN: Medical Marijuana Patients

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:13 pm

tiredofbeingnice wrote:If the shoe doesn't fit.... don't wear it.

Looks like someone needs a light about now....just sayin.....

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:42 pm

Trishntek wrote:
IIRC the instance you refer to was in a community where people had the CHOICE to pay or not pay for the service. The owner of the home which burned CHOSE not to pay. I think it a beautiful example of enjoying the benefits of one's own decision.

You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!

There has been more than one in the news recently, but I remember both cases here were not cases of people that had opted out, but people paying for many years, simply lapsed,
The case most in the news was lapsed a short time by oversight, with over 15 years of subscription.
I think the other was due to medical bills overwhelming them, but long record of payment in the past.

MyDearFriend · Post by **MyDearFriend** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:55 pm

Trishntek wrote:
You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!

You know

that's the kind of thing that sounds good, and I would be completely unable to pull any kind of truck out of my ass (not quite that big!) but, here's the thing:

It really is an abuse of our good-hearted EMS folk to make them stand by while some ADDITIONAL LAYER OF GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY, don't kid yourself there please, while some faceless bureaucrat decides whether or not the situation merits a response. And if, as has been known to happen, some little clerical worker has made a mistake, hit 'delete' instead of 'enter' or some such, then by the time they get that all figured out your life, home or livelihood could be long gone, thousands of acres set up to slide loose at the next rain, or a seam of coal ignited that could burn for a thousand years. Let's not pay the extra money to go there when we could just let EMS do their job. For everybody.

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:24 pm

Trishntek wrote:
unjonharley wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote: Could happen again when we get rid of municipal fire departments.
Yes, We must rid ourselfs of those useful departments.. The money has to go to the carpet baggers that cntract services at twice the price..
IIRC the instance you refer to was in a community where people had the CHOICE to pay or not pay for the service. The owner of the home which burned CHOSE not to pay. I think it a beautiful example of enjoying the benefits of one's own decision.

You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!

Oh for Christ sake, that's one of the most over-the-top things I think I have ever heard you say. If there is one thing that the government SHOULD be responsible for from our hard earned tax dollars we pay them is POLICE and FIRE protection.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:35 pm

Ding! Ding! Ding! Jkisha nailed it...again.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:58 pm

You are assuming every community has a government-operated fire department. I've lived in unincorporated communities where the fire department was volunteer and totally depended upon funding by annual fees rather than taxes. If someone chooses not to participate, the risk is their's to take, not our position to compensate for their lack of common sense.

Same with cooperative phone services and electricity. You don't pay, you don't receive,,,, how simple can it get? Or maybe you think the lights should stay on even if the bill is not paid?

Post by **mdmf007** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:35 pm

It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.

lonestoner916 · Post by **lonestoner916** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:11 pm

mdmf007 wrote:It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.

REALLY?? I agree that Fire Fighters should respond when and where they are needed, but a lien on the home? Shit, dock their wages if necessary but in this housing crisis I think that's a little extreme. $0.02

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:15 pm

lonestoner916 wrote:
mdmf007 wrote:It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.
REALLY?? I agree that Fire Fighters should respond when and where they are needed, but a lien on the home? Shit, dock their wages if necessary but in this housing crisis I think that's a little extreme. $0.02

Hey, $550 an hour is a bargain. And liens only kick in if you sell, don't they?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:16 pm

jkisha wrote:
Trishntek wrote:
unjonharley wrote: Yes, We must rid ourselfs of those useful departments.. The money has to go to the carpet baggers that cntract services at twice the price..
IIRC the instance you refer to was in a community where people had the CHOICE to pay or not pay for the service. The owner of the home which burned CHOSE not to pay. I think it a beautiful example of enjoying the benefits of one's own decision.

You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!
Oh for Christ sake, that's one of the most over-the-top things I think I have ever heard you say. If there is one thing that the government SHOULD be responsible for from our hard earned tax dollars we pay them is POLICE and FIRE protection.

Not to mention that fire spreads easily to those who have paid.

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:30 pm

lonestoner916 wrote:
mdmf007 wrote:It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.
REALLY?? I agree that Fire Fighters should respond when and where they are needed, but a lien on the home? Shit, dock their wages if necessary but in this housing crisis I think that's a little extreme. $0.02

Actually, a lien is appropriate and probably the best solution. The home owner has the ability to pay the debt and have the lien removed, or it just sits there and is paid when the property is sold, assuming there is any equity at the time of sale. If not, they probably won't be able to sell.

I've lined properties after getting judgements, it's a very effective method of assuring getting paid...eventually.

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:18 am

mdmf007 wrote:It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.

only need a lien if they didn't have fire insurance.

EspressoDude · Post by **EspressoDude** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:01 pm

fire insurance in a medical marijuana thread?

Can someone get insurance for their crop?

motskyroonmatick · Post by **motskyroonmatick** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:22 pm

Crop Insurance Providers List for 2011
http://www3.rma.usda.gov/tools/agents/c ... ndexCI.cfm
An agent authorized to sell livestock policies is NOT required to sell crop policies, and visa versa.

Post by **mdmf007** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:43 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
lonestoner916 wrote:
mdmf007 wrote:It is reprehensible for a fire department to not respond to provide aid. We have been told more than once by our carrier - respond if you know about an incident. To not do so opens you up to more liability for nonfeasance.

I would suggest all of these departments on subscriptions to simply post their rates, and file a lien on the home after the fact for services rendered.

We charge 550.00 an hour for 4 FF's and 2 trucks.

just my 2 cents.
REALLY?? I agree that Fire Fighters should respond when and where they are needed, but a lien on the home? Shit, dock their wages if necessary but in this housing crisis I think that's a little extreme. $0.02
Hey, $550 an hour is a bargain. And liens only kick in if you sell, don't they?

Beats not getting a response, and yup liens only kick in upon sale, I imagine the bill would also be covered by a homeowners insurance policy under some imminent loss clause to cover an emergency.

now I am up to at least a nickles worth of thoughts.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:14 pm

Trishntek wrote:
unjonharley wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote: Could happen again when we get rid of municipal fire departments.
Yes, We must rid ourselfs of those useful departments.. The money has to go to the carpet baggers that cntract services at twice the price..
IIRC the instance you refer to was in a community where people had the CHOICE to pay or not pay for the service. The owner of the home which burned CHOSE not to pay. I think it a beautiful example of enjoying the benefits of one's own decision.

You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!

*unbuckling belt*

MyDearFriend · Post by **MyDearFriend** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:02 pm

ygmir wrote:
Trishntek wrote:
unjonharley wrote: Yes, We must rid ourselfs of those useful departments.. The money has to go to the carpet baggers that cntract services at twice the price..
IIRC the instance you refer to was in a community where people had the CHOICE to pay or not pay for the service. The owner of the home which burned CHOSE not to pay. I think it a beautiful example of enjoying the benefits of one's own decision.

You who think emergency services should be offered to everyone no matter what should be the first to pull a fire truck out of your own ass!

*unbuckling belt*

*almost not looking*

BBadger · Post by **BBadger** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:16 pm

jkisha wrote:Oh for Christ sake, that's one of the most over-the-top things I think I have ever heard you say. If there is one thing that the government SHOULD be responsible for from our hard earned tax dollars we pay them is POLICE and FIRE protection.

Well in that publicized case the residence was outside the tax area, and people who wanted service needed to pay $75 for coverage, but really, that wasn't the major issue. Rarely are things so "over-the-top."

You'll find many articles on the case. Most just cover the "outrage" of a fire department refusing to fight a fire of someone in need. It would definitely be over-the-top if the generalized facts were taken at face value. In any normal circumstance, even with some missed payment or something, they'd fight the fire and work out the details later, right? However, here's an article with some more details.

The case was to serve as an example, and this residence must have been well-known enough to give a direct order to refuse to fight the fire.

The problem was that this residence had steadfastly refused to provide payment for years on end. Still, that wasn't reason enough to refuse service. After all, who really is going to check a list on some particular residence and refuse service? The details could be worked out later, or the service just eaten up in overhead.

The thing is, this kind of fire wasn't the first time this kind of thing happened. Three years prior, the non-payer had begged the fire department to come and fight the fire caused by him burning trash at the residence (the same reason as the second fire). They arrived, and fought the fire, but despite that, the non-payer only to refuse to pay for future service. Depending on department policy, it may not be possible to bill someone for the fire fighting effort if they're not covered by the service. After that kind of treatment, the fire department probably took time to blacklist this residence from future assistance. Hell, he already got his "free service" once.

So when the second fire came up, the fire department refused to service the fire even when the non-paying owner of the home even called up the fire department at the time of the fire and told them he'd offer up payment if they'd arrive (probably just $75, not the cost of fighting the fire). The fire department eventually arrived, but only at the behest of a neighbor who did pay for the serving. The firemen serviced the neighbor's home, but "watched idly" as the non-payer's residence go up in fire only because they were at the scene helping the neighbor.

It seems kind of "heartless" that they would just let the other house go up in fire, but there was a pattern of behavior that led to this.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:20 pm

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, where'd da nuggets go?...

i see alot of fire, but there ain't no smoke.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:05 pm

I'll reply by simply quoting the last paragraph of the article you referenced:

Shame on Cranick for not paying this bill. Shame on the fire department for watching the house burn down. Maybe the imposition of a punitive fine on Cranick would have been appropriate. Bottom line -- there has to be a better way!

BBadger · Post by **BBadger** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:50 pm

jkisha wrote:I'll reply by simply quoting the last paragraph of the article you referenced:
Shame on Cranick for not paying this bill. Shame on the fire department for watching the house burn down. Maybe the imposition of a punitive fine on Cranick would have been appropriate. Bottom line -- there has to be a better way!

The "better way" would be that the guy can pay for the entire fire-fighting fee in the event of a fire disaster. Still, that's hard to work out. The problem with many of these emergency services is that they're only possible through socialization. So if you're working on the idea that people can just pay up when something goes wrong, you won't have any capital to even fund the system in the first place. Emergency health services get reimbursed by the state or federal government if someone can't pay if I recall, but I'm not sure about these smaller jurisdictions with fire departments.

Even so, I'm not even sure if this is such a bad system as it stands. People can save money by not paying for insurance because of low probabilities that problems will occur. An example is health insurance for young people who are less likely to have serious health problems. I know some people who are pissed with socialized healthcare in the US for those reasons specifically, as they would rather have the money now, than pay for health insurance they'll never use. The same thing with purchasing flood or forest fire insurance if you're in certain locations.

The non-payer dude was probably correctly assuming that he wouldn't suffer catastrophic fire damage to his home--even after having it happen once (lightning never strikes twice right?). Most people won't. Hell, maybe even the cost of fighting the fire wouldn't be worth the damage caused by it; I feel more sorry for those pets.

If you want the freedom of choice, you need to live with the consequences.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:21 pm

Personally, i like mdmf007's solution.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:35 pm

Even when I was on search and rescue, we would give family the option whether to use a helicopter or not use a helicopter in a rescue operation. In the 80's $400/hr was the going rate. it was about 50/50 those who would say "yes."

If it was a matter of life and death, that was completely different issue. There was a time not long ago when property was entirely up to the owner to protect, not the gubmint.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:39 pm

Trishntek wrote:Even when I was on search and rescue, we would give family the option whether to use a helicopter or not use a helicopter in a rescue operation. In the 80's $400/hr was the going rate. it was about 50/50 those who would say "yes."

If it was a matter of life and death, that was completely different issue. There was a time not long ago when property was entirely up to the owner to protect, not the gubmint.

Yes, but since then we have decided it better to move toward a more civilized society.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:44 pm

"we" who?

I'm sure the firetruck salesmen, the ambulance salesmen, the safety engineers and the insurance companies had a big say in the notion that we simply cannot possibly take care of ourselves.

BBadger · Post by **BBadger** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:11 am

jkisha wrote:Personally, i like mdmf007's solution.

What's a lien going to do someone who is not going to sell their house? Furthermore, what grants a fire department, or any organization, the power to enforce liens on residences outside their operational jurisdiction, or collect payment without contract? I'm guessing that this was the situation the first time Cranick called for help: his house received service, but afterwards he gave the firemen the finger when they asked for compensation on a fire he caused on his own property. The fire department learned their lesson, and blacklisted him.

I don't believe belonging to a "civilized society" entitles us to reward such behavior. There are victims of circumstance; this man is not a victim but someone who made his bed and is sleeping in it.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:27 am

Trishntek wrote:"we" who?

You can't really be serious.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:34 am

BBadger wrote:
jkisha wrote:Personally, i like mdmf007's solution.
What's a lien going to do someone who is not going to sell their house? Furthermore, what grants a fire department, or any organization, the power to enforce liens on residences outside their operational jurisdiction, or collect payment without contract? I'm guessing that this was the situation the first time Cranick called for help: his house received service, but afterwards he gave the firemen the finger when they asked for compensation on a fire he caused on his own property. The fire department learned their lesson, and blacklisted him.

I don't believe belonging to a "civilized society" entitles us to reward such behavior. There are victims of circumstance; this man is not a victim but someone who made his bed and is sleeping in it.

You have a valid argument, but I don't agree that it should be necessary to have to have this discussion because I believe that fire and police service should be paid from taxes and provided by the municipalities and available to everyone.

Post by **mdmf007** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:21 am

jkisha wrote:
BBadger wrote:
jkisha wrote:Personally, i like mdmf007's solution.
What's a lien going to do someone who is not going to sell their house? Furthermore, what grants a fire department, or any organization, the power to enforce liens on residences outside their operational jurisdiction, or collect payment without contract? I'm guessing that this was the situation the first time Cranick called for help: his house received service, but afterwards he gave the firemen the finger when they asked for compensation on a fire he caused on his own property. The fire department learned their lesson, and blacklisted him.

I don't believe belonging to a "civilized society" entitles us to reward such behavior. There are victims of circumstance; this man is not a victim but someone who made his bed and is sleeping in it.
You have a valid argument, but I don't agree that it should be necessary to have to have this discussion because I believe that fire and police service should be paid from taxes and provided by the municipalities and available to everyone.

Your right a lien only kicks in when you sell, but at 5000.00 bucks for a lien in example pays for a lot fo those 75.00 subscriptions that didnt get paid. This is the one reason health care is so expensive. Those who do pay or are forced to pay for services rendered - cover the people who never pay. Not a perfect system, but a workable system.

And on another note - I am so happy to see thread drift that is in a meaningful text. Usually it turns into a shit show between a couple of people. So game on - from medical blunts to fire trucks in only a few pages.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:47 am

The administrative costs of the health care denial industry far outstrip real costs in medical care.
And the real "cost" is the discounted price that the denial industry actually pays, not the inflated retail charge that is billed to individuals.

That "no value added tax" cost added by the health care denial industry is what is used to pay for universal medical care in canada, and other places.
The current rate of profit and administrative cost increases is unsustainable, as the rate of bankruptcy by otherwise solvent people, due to medical bills, shows.

Letting a house burn on purpose has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with terrorizing current subscribers, or settling personal scores.
It rarely happens because costs seem to be settled by lawsuit or agreement, in general practice.
When it has happened, violence would be the expected result, at some point.

There is a very old song, to the effect that
"The country fireman always saves the chimney"