Conquer Club

Though it would be a whole lot more fun being a fireman..

Snorri1234 wrote:"Well this house sure looks like it could easily burn. Probably only needs a match to set this here roof on fire and then it will all go up in flames, sure wouldn't want to have no insurance. fires can start really easy."

Which is why we wouldn't pay firemen on commission.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"Well this house sure looks like it could easily burn. Probably only needs a match to set this here roof on fire and then it will all go up in flames, sure wouldn't want to have no insurance. fires can start really easy."

Which is why we wouldn't pay firemen on commission.

Or pay them by how many insurances they get. Just like with health-care, it doesn't work when not everyone has insurance.

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"Well this house sure looks like it could easily burn. Probably only needs a match to set this here roof on fire and then it will all go up in flames, sure wouldn't want to have no insurance. fires can start really easy."

Which is why we wouldn't pay firemen on commission.

Or pay them by how many insurances they get. Just like with health-care, it doesn't work when not everyone has insurance.

Yep. Makes you wonder, if a private fire company would start fires, do private health insurance companies cause accidents and create viruses? I say, "YES!" Conspiracy theories abound!

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"Well this house sure looks like it could easily burn. Probably only needs a match to set this here roof on fire and then it will all go up in flames, sure wouldn't want to have no insurance. fires can start really easy."

Which is why we wouldn't pay firemen on commission.

Or pay them by how many insurances they get. Just like with health-care, it doesn't work when not everyone has insurance.

Yep. Makes you wonder, if a private fire company would start fires, do private health insurance companies cause accidents and create viruses? I say, "YES!" Conspiracy theories abound!

You're being obtuse. My point is simply that everyone needs to be covered because they will cost money regardless of whether they have insurance. If your house burns down and you have no insurance and nobody wants to put it out guess who gets added to the poor and homeless statistics?

Snorri1234 wrote:You're being obtuse. My point is simply that everyone needs to be covered because they will cost money regardless of whether they have insurance. If your house burns down and you have no insurance and nobody wants to put it out guess who gets added to the poor and homeless statistics?

I'm truly not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to figure out how private fire companies would work. I'm not interested in turning this interesting thread into another godawful thread about health insurance where my facts are better than yours because your facts are from Fox and mine are from some study from Germany.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:You're being obtuse. My point is simply that everyone needs to be covered because they will cost money regardless of whether they have insurance. If your house burns down and you have no insurance and nobody wants to put it out guess who gets added to the poor and homeless statistics?

I'm truly not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to figure out how private fire companies would work. I'm not interested in turning this interesting thread into another godawful thread about health insurance where my facts are better than yours because your facts are from Fox and mine are from some study from Germany.

My point is that private fire companies don't work if insurance is not mandatory. I mean, doubtless companies would make mad money on it but the costs in money and life are frankly too much.

Snorri1234 wrote:My point is that private fire companies don't work if insurance is not mandatory. I mean, doubtless companies would make mad money on it but the costs in money and life are frankly too much.

I don't agree. I think private fire companies would work.

Look, people smoke and drink, for which companies make all sorts of loot, but there is a ton of cost associated with both of those things. The solution? There's two: (1) people stop smoking and drinking or (2) the government makes smoking and drinking illegal.

Oh, they'd be quite viable ... all fire departments were private in the UK up to the 1940s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Now whether they should or not is a separate matter, much like whether people have a right to free healthcare. But they work as private enterprise, no doubt about it. They were actually paid by insurance companies - less damage to houses = less insurance needing to be paid out = better for the insurance company. No corruption or firestarting needed.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, they'd be quite viable ... all fire departments were private in the UK up to the 1940s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Now whether they should or not is a separate matter, much like whether people have a right to free healthcare. But they work as private enterprise, no doubt about it. They were actually paid by insurance companies - less damage to houses = less insurance needing to be paid out = better for the insurance company. No corruption or firestarting needed.

Interesting. I think they were like that in the US back-in-the-day (which is code for "that there past somewheres).

Anywho, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another healthcare thread, but regardless of how one feels about healthcare, it is NOT a right. A right is not something for which you have to take from someone to give that right to someone else. I think universal healthcare is a laudible goal, but it's not a right.

thegreekdog wrote:Anywho, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another healthcare thread, but regardless of how one feels about healthcare, it is NOT a right. A right is not something for which you have to take from someone to give that right to someone else. I think universal healthcare is a laudible goal, but it's not a right.

You consider it a right to have your property defending from fire, but not a right to have you life saved from preventable illnesses?

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Anywho, I'm not trying to turn this into yet another healthcare thread, but regardless of how one feels about healthcare, it is NOT a right. A right is not something for which you have to take from someone to give that right to someone else. I think universal healthcare is a laudible goal, but it's not a right.

You consider it a right to have your property defending from fire, but not a right to have you life saved from preventable illnesses?

What? I never said that. I don't think it's a right to have your property defended from fire. Rights, at least how I understand the term, are to things like speech, religion, and privacy. Things like a house or a car or firemen service or health insurance are not actually rights.

Didn't we get confused about this before?

thegreekdog wrote:Didn't we get confused about this before?

I don't recall is happening with me...maybe someone else?

Ok, if its not a right, its an essential service? What else would you consider in this area?

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Didn't we get confused about this before?

I don't recall is happening with me...maybe someone else?

Ok, if its not a right, its an essential service? What else would you consider in this area?

I think healthcare is a need. I would say healthcare is a priority. I think it's something that should be provided to those that could not otherwise afford it.

Other stuff? Hmm.... Not sure.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, they'd be quite viable ... all fire departments were private in the UK up to the 1940s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Now whether they should or not is a separate matter, much like whether people have a right to free healthcare. But they work as private enterprise, no doubt about it. They were actually paid by insurance companies - less damage to houses = less insurance needing to be paid out = better for the insurance company. No corruption or firestarting needed.

You need to read that article again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

jonesthecurl wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, they'd be quite viable ... all fire departments were private in the UK up to the 1940s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Now whether they should or not is a separate matter, much like whether people have a right to free healthcare. But they work as private enterprise, no doubt about it. They were actually paid by insurance companies - less damage to houses = less insurance needing to be paid out = better for the insurance company. No corruption or firestarting needed.

You need to read that article again. It doesn't say what you think it does.

pfft .. you're right. This one, then:
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireInsur ... heLFEE.asp (that and the following 3 pages)

the point is that the fire service used to be privately owned and operated in the UK. Now, I'm not saying for one minute that I think that the fire service should be privately owned. But it was at one point and you could argue, along the same lines that healthcare currently is being in the US, that it's a need rather than essential service. Some people's houses never burn down ....