It is funny how we re-argue settled policy in this country. We talked about what should be public and what should be private over 50 years ago. Does being poor mean that you can’t get fire protection? If you listen to conservatives, the answer is you get what you pay for. (Translation – Screw the poor.)
From TP:
As ThinkProgress reported earlier this morning, South Fulton firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, last week stood by and watched as a family’s home burned down because their services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. As ThinkProgress noted, the case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged.
Now, leading conservative authors from modern conservatism’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, have come out in defense of Obion County firefighters’ policy of servicing rural citizens by paid subscription only. The magazine’s commentary on the issue started with a blog post by Daniel Forster, one of the magazine’s staff writers. Writing on the National Review blog The Corner, Forster condemned the behavior of the county, saying that while he has “no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle,” he sees no “moral theory” under which the firefighters would be justified in watching the house burn down:
I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?
Yet, Forster’s fellow conservative writers found it hard to tolerate his view that families shouldn’t have to watch their homes burn down as firefighters stand there with their hoses. First, Kevin Williamson responded, comparing the family whose home was destroyed to “jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates”:
Dan, you are 100 percent wrong. […] And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives. (more…)
This is so infuriating. They put too much value in money and that freaking policy over the safety and comfort of the unfortunate family. Really disappointing to know how their governing system works.
This is so infuriating. They put too much value in money and that freaking policy over the safety and comfort of the unfortunate family. Really disappointing to know how their governing system works.
Hooray for the free market!
The conservative movement is about me and I. What can the system do for me? How much money can I make? What kind of neighborhood can I live in? It is not about community or us. Those are socialist, communist ideas. There is NO collective good. What as that popular rap song by De La Soul – Me, Myself and I? That's the conservative movement.
Thanks for your comments.
Now, if this was the 1920's and we didn't have the modern equipment that we have today and half the neighborhood went up in smoke then there would be a public outcry from everyone. Because in the 20's and 30's it was clear that a threat to one was a real threat to all, now that's not so clear. Conservatives are taking advantage of modern technology and modern systems which were collectively developed and making their me, myself and I case.
Thanks for your comments.
yes these firefighters stupidly allowed the house to burn, although there is no proof offered to support Dr Thompson's implication that they are conservatives.
At least no one died in the fire.
Let's see what happens when Democrats step back and take a hands off approach:
Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
yes that's right. Obama supported infanticide, allowing children born alive to die without medical care as they lay on a countertop in the hospital
now he gets to run healthcare for all of us. Aren't you excited about that?
Mr. Let-Them-Die himself is head of our healthcare.
I thought you were all for free market and take care of your own…. If they choose not pay for the fire department coverage then they shouldn't get it. Isn't that the way of no taxes and to take care of your own and that society shouldn't have to help you out? That is what you have been preaching.
I knew a coworker whose daughter had a baby without most of its brain. The child was born alive. But the doctors told the parents it was up to them as to what to do. They could have kept the child on all kinds of machines but why? They chose to do nothing and take the baby home to let it die with them. The baby lived for 2 weeks. If the doctors had taken the baby and kept it alive on machines. Who is responsible for the bills. When the baby is going to die shortly anyways. They had the right to choose. But according to you they should not have had that choice. That they were forced into killing their own child.
What happens to the babies that are born under a pound. Should every aspect be done to keep it alive? If the parents don't have insurance and will never be able to pay the bills of forever care with all the side effects of being born premature. Plus the baby will not be able to function. You have stated that is the family's responsibility to take care of all the bills. If the doctor has suggested that the baby could be let to die. Then who is in charge of the sick. Who gets to make the decisions? The mother should have had insurance right? No we wouldn't want national coverage to help people make those decisions. Now do we? Same thing with Fire Service.
There was a 13 year old that the courts tried to force the parents to give chemo for suspected cancer. The parents took the boy and ran. They wanted to try different ways to treat him. The courts said the parents have no rights to try anything they MUST do what the doctors said. The treatment would have sterlized their son. Turned out he never had cancer. You can read about the story.Parker Jensen It made national news. Who forces who to do what some people think it correct.
The man made his choice according to all your preaching Plus what happens if he doesn't have home owners insurance to cover his home and belongings. Then he gets to live on the street. You have made that clear all along. You want NO taxes to provide services for society and let people pay themselves and take care of themselves. He should have paid the 75 dollars.
Margaret wrote:
“You want NO taxes to provide services for society”
Nowhere have I stated or implied such a thing. A position of no taxes/no government would be the dream of an anachist.
I am not an anarchist.
I believe in a federal government with limited powers (those given to it by the Constitution) and the rest left up to the states and the people (read the 10th amendment).
But go ahead and keep making things up, because it makes you sound so smart when you set up a straw man and knock it down.
Obama lied about his support for infanticide. He was finally forced to admit that he lied about his stance on the Born Alive bill. Read the transcript of his speech in the Senate where he keeps referring to the baby outside the womb as 'a fetus'. What a liar.
But he's a good guy because he didn't let a house burn. Instead he let babies die without protection of their right to life.
From Think Progress today:
“As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, South Fulton Fire Department firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, last week stood by and watched as a family’s home burned down because their services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. Immediately, right-wing writers at the conservative movement’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, leapt to the defense of the county and argued in support of the notion that firefighting should not be a public service available to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Now, local news station ABC 7 is reporting that the Obion County Budget Committee met last night and has decided to expand the subscription-only fire service to additional towns. The station reports that the committee “passed an agreement yesterday to give all communities in the county the option of paying a subscription” to purchase fire service — essentially expanding the service that stood by and watched as the Cranick family’s home burned to the ground. Watch the station’s report:
Union City Fire Department Chief Kelly Edmison objects to the new expansion, saying that “the best option is a true fire tax. It eliminates this having 911 or whoever check to say, ‘Are they covered or not covered?’ The last thing a firefighter wants to do is to not be able to help when they’d like to.” According to documents prepared by the county in 2008, a paltry 0.13 cent increase in property taxes on each household would be all it would take to fund fire services for the towns within the county.”
Gotta love those conservatives at National Review…
Liberals ignore the damage done to 'we' and 'us' by illegal aliens who are criminals.
Obama wants to make them citizens and he hopes they'll gratefully vote Democratic in return, so he stands idly by while the country suffers invasion.
But again, it aint a house burning. It's just people getting raped, killed and otherwise ripped off.
http://www.voiac.org/
I wonder if the neighbor can sue if their house catches fire or for smoke or water damage because of the one without coverage that caught fire.
OMG! A tax for fireman? You are surely a communist.
Joe – I said that this type of mentality has been promoted by conservatives. I have not idea who or what the firefighters are. It doesn't matter. The problem is that Americans thought it was okay to stand around and watch a house burn.
Errington C. Thompson, MD
Sent from my iPad
You implied without proof that conservatives were responsible for the policy , and you implied that the victim was poor, again without proof.
But dont let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good rant.
It's much more important to make conservatives look bad than it is to tell the truth.
The conservatives are all about the private sector and elimination of government. That is in their slogans. Too much goverment. The private sector can do a better job. The states are looking to sell off alot of services people expect to get in order to cut the government spending. But then when asked to pay for a service they assume it is something they should be entitled too. The federal government sets rules and fees that you say are excessive but then you expect things when thing don't work out.
The conservatives want their cake and don't want to share and expect the same responses.
It will be interesting to see what the lawyers do with this one. IF it was legal.
Wait was it in the constitution that there must be fire fighters?
Margaret, you seem to be completely unaware that in America we have different levels of government, with different areas of responsibility. The feds generally aren't responsible for fire police protection; local jurisdictions do that (unless it is a federal facility such as a military base).
This is the thing that many liberals misunderstand when talking about 'government'. They fail to know when they cross the jurisdictional line between talking about one level of government and another.
Actually, the neighbor paid his subscription fee and was protected.
The city of South Fulton taxes itself to pay this fire dept. They cannot and do not tax residents of the rural areas surrounding the city where this fire occurred.
The rural residents have not organized a rural fire dept to protect their homes, but can pay the fire dept of the city to go beyond their city limits to protect rural properties.
The owner of this home didnt pay the subscription fee, and by the look of the house, he probably wasn't poor.
I know there are different levels of government. But it is the same for all levels. When there is any kind of accident such as an oil spill, bridge collapsing, levies breaking, airplanes sitting on the tarmac too long. Coal Mines killing people.Look at how many food and toy recalls we have. People scream that where is the government. Regardless of the level.
The conservatives want less regulation and less government ALL LEVELS intruding into their business and lives. But then are the first to yell not fair and why didn't you look out for us. Someone has to pay for the protection and rules to protect the masses.
Just like you keep calling the Healthcare Obamacare. Well who wrote the bill. Congress.
The states should know what is going on in their states. Why are the states not checking on the mines, levies, bridges, and so forth. Because people expect someone else to do it so they can blame others instead of being responsible.
Margaret wrote:
“I know there are different levels of government.”
Then instead of trashing the city firefighters for not putting out a fire in the rural area, why aren't you asking “why didn't the county have a Rural Fire Dept?”
Recognizing the proper area of jurisdiction seems to escape you.
Are the city firefighters required to go outside the city and fight fires where the people don't pay the taxes to support the service? Should they go 1 mile, 20 miles or 100 miles into the rural area and service the people who aren't paying taxes to support it?
Do the Philly cops respond to calls from Boston?
If folks in the county want fire service, they should tax themselves like the city folks have done. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
But it is far too easy to jump on Dr Thompsons bandwagon and blame conservatives for every evil of the world.
Sad.
[…] my previous post, I was accused of painting the firefighters as conservatives (I don’t know who they were and […]
[…] my previous post, I was accused of painting the firefighters as conservatives (I don’t know who they were and […]
No he didn't. This story died 3 years ago but you persist. Read what the Chicago Tribute said about this. Joe you are much better than this. Wow.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html
If the fireman weren't standing there watching the house burn this would be a total different discussion…. The rural paid the city the city to protect them. It is called unicorporated areas.
I never trashed the fireman, I felt bad for them they were caught in the middle. I am trashing your conservative theory that only the ones who have the money deserve basic needs. That is not the American way.
Margaret wrote:
“The rural paid the city the city to protect them. It is called unicorporated areas. “
No, they didnt. That's the whole point. In that county, the county does not pay the city to protect residents in unincorporated areas.
The residents are supposed to pay the city a subscription fee, which this guy (and he wasnt poor as Dr Thompson tried to imply) didnt do.
He was in a rural area without its own fire department and he didnt protect his home.
You and Dr Thompson just look more and more ridiculous complaining about these firefighters when it was clear to everyone that the city's firefighters are tasked with taking care of those who pay for their service (i.e. city dwellers who pay by taxation and rural residents who voluntarily pay by subscription)
The residents of the county should have been on the ball, but they werent. But that is not the fault of the people (or the firefighters) in the city.
But you and Dr Thompson mindlessly jumped to blame conservatives and conservatism for this loss.
Everything is political to you folks, isn't it?
You lose no opportunity to twist somebody's tragedy into a political opportunity.
Sickening. Truly it is.
Margaret wrote:
“Plus what happens if he doesn't have home owners insurance to cover his home and belongings. Then he gets to live on the street.You have made that clear all along. You want NO taxes to provide services for society and let people pay themselves and take care of themselves.”
And I suppose that is the fault of conservatives also because we havent supported a single payer homeowners insurance plan that is run from Washington?
Liberals in America need to quit blaming conservatives for every evil of the world and every tragedy. Come back to reality and quit making everything political.
Read the text of the amendment.
No reasonable person would've voted against it.
If the mother goes in for an abortion, but the abortion fails and the baby is born alive, would you strangle the baby to death to make sure it dies?
of course not
so why would you leave it on a countertop in the storage room to die without medical care?
When the baby is born, it's a living person. Not even a pro-abort can dispute that.
But Obama referred to it as 'a fetus' and said giving the baby the protection of the law wasnt a good thing.
He's a liar. He lied about it from the moment he opened his mouth Dr Thompson.
Letting children die without medical care as they sit on a countertop in the hospital is infanticide.
I thought you were in favor of health care for all?
HMM I wonder why you blame everything on the liberals… The liberals just try to find ways to help the masses not the rich folks like you…. Since when did I blame the fire fighters? I never did. They could have put it out and put a lien on his property for the cost of the service. You make up stuff so much. One post you say don't tax let people spend their money then you say Oh they should have taxed them…. You can't stand blaming the liberals just because you are not happy in your life…So So sad. Conservatives look to blame and not figure out how to make things work. Democrats actually try and solve problems with what they have to work with.
Margaret wrote:
“liberals just try to find ways to help the masses not the rich folks like you”
My income is 'below the line' most years. I'm very far from rich, except that I have family to love and that loves me so in that I am rich.
Why liberals always want to demonize rich people, I'll never understand. Envy, I guess. I was always taught covetousness was a bad thing but it's the new religion of the left.
and btw conservatives don't look upon people as 'masses' but as individuals.