Beck On Family’s Home Burning Down As Firefighters Watched: ‘We Are Going To Have To Have These Things’
"As ThinkProgress reported...South Fulton Fire Department firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, stood by and watched as the Cranick family’s home burned down — which also led to the death of the family’s three dogs and a cat — because their fire-fighting 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, defended the county and argued that firefighting should not be a public service available to all, regardless of ability to pay."
Now, yet another major conservative has joined the defense. On his radio show this afternoon, leading right-wing talker Glenn Beck and his producer Pat Gray openly mocked the Cranick family. After playing a news clip explaining the situation, Gray adopted a southern drawl and began to mock Gene Cranick’s explanation of how the county’s firefighters refused to help his family.
It appears that Beck believes that events like what transpired in Obion County should teach Americans lessons about personal responsibility. But where does Beck draw the line when it comes to opposing public services for those who have not paid fees? Would he oppose subscription-based police officers refusing to help a rape victim? How about subscription-based military personnel refusing to repel a terrorist attack on a community that hasn’t paid up? One has to wonder just how far Beck is willing to go."
Yes, people like Beck, a recovering dirtbag, would have us all live in a Hobbsian world where our lives would indeed be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And everything reduced to one's ability to pay.
Three dogs and a cat died horrible deaths in that conflagration, and rodeo clown, Beck, applauds that sort of inhumane behavior by the county--Serves 'em right. If you don't pay, you lose--EVERYTHING.
That's the distopian world the Becks, the Limbaughs, the Palins, the Hannities, the Gingriches, the Millers, the Angles, the O'Donnells and the nasty, brutish people among the Tea Baggers envision for America.
Screw the tired, the poor, the huddled masses. Make 'em pay, or let 'em die.
Go ahead. Vote for these people in November and live with the consequences.
11 comments:
right-wing writers at the conservative movement’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, defended the county and argued that firefighting should not be a public service available to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Not surprising, because this incident cuts right to the bone with them. A little thought about it shows pretty clearly why fire protection does indeed need to be a public service, available to all and funded through general revenues (as it is, almost everywhere), rather than working on a private-insurance model.
And a little further thought shows why the same logic applies with health care.
If you cannot pay...then you cannot pay. So, we better be pulling the stakes up on our military all over the world...because we just cannot pay!
Strange how these rich guys like Glenn Beck that have great health insurance and tax cuts hate the thought of the poor and middle class having health insurance and a fire department.
There are two Americas as John Edwards said. The country club one and the one that the country clubbers want for the rest of us. Which is a medieval America.
It's a shame, what if a family member had died in that fire? Would Beck be blaming the person for not taking the responsibility to get themselves out quick enough? And if this person was disabled and could not walk out would Beck be making fun of the weak and the sick, the needy? You betcha he would!
I will never understand why they think this line of thought makes for a better country.
Sharon Angle has reversed her position on Medicare and the VA (she once opposed both). But if a free market will really make for better health care, she should want to deregulate both. And if the free market won't work for veterans and the elderly -- if the government can provide better health care for them -- what is the argument that it wouldn't be better for everyone else?
They can't or won't answer the questions because the answers inevitably lead to what they believe but won't say directly: They simply don't want to provide health care for the poor [read (in their miniscule minds): minorities].
This is not a “libertarian” system first off. This was a government system albeit local and they decided on the system.
Would there be “free rider” problems under a privatized system in a libertarian society? Possibly so, but that doesn’t make the “public goods” argument any more valid.
How would a libertarian society deal with it? First, even under the current system, about 75% of the fire departments are voluntary in this country.
Second, they could have charged him a fee for service (which would be much higher) and billed him later out of goodwill.
Third, the probable scenarios that would have occurred are: A)if there was still a system of property tax for real estate in tact, the annual fee could have been added to the property tax or made in payments per month, quarter, etc when the taxes are due. or B)Assuming he had insurance on his property: the insurance company would probably require paying the fee to cover their investment or they would deny him coverage or alter the policy where he understands the risk, or charge higher premiums or C)Assuming he has a mortgage, the mortgage company could require fire coverage as well. Right now they require home owner’s insurance to protect their investment.
See what self regulation is now? Also, do you insure your valuables, including real estate, automobiles, etc? I thought so!
If none of this was compulsory, and he refused to insure his home, pay fire coverage, etc, yes, I am ok with his house burning down. There is no “right” to owning a home and he is being irresponsible in protecting his investment. Can’t afford it? Go rent a place or stay with someone until you get back on your feet financially…
Allowing animals to burn to death when they could be saved sounds like a crime to me. The homeowner said that he heard that the same fire dept had allowed a barn with horses in it to burn as well.
Think Progress reports that the Humane Society issued a condemnation of the city officials who ordered the firefighters not to intervene.
Someone responding to the Think Progress story said this is compassionate conservatism in action. I agree.
A similar thing happened to me. I pulled a dog from underneath a bed where it was hiding. The fire hadn't spread to that part of the house yet... so I wasn't exactly running back into a burning building. The fire department did show up, but the house burned completely to the ground.
This was when I still lived at home. My parents told me afterward that the fire department sent them a bill. Apparently they dug some trenches in an effort to stop it from spreading to the neighbor's property. I believe they said they didn't pay it though.
"they could have charged him"
"the probable scenarios"
"See what self regulation is now? "
Yes: A lot of "could haves" and "probables." Essentially, it's a theory with a paucity of evidence to support it.
" Also, do you insure your valuables, including real estate, automobiles, etc? I thought so!"
Apples and oranges. Fire spreads. In a condo or office building, it "could" spread from from uninsured unit to another insured unit until you can't tell them apart. It could spread from an uninsured building or house to an insured one. Whose fire gets put out when it's really all one fire?
You may argue that "most" buildings and condos will carry the insurance, but that's not the same as all. And how does it prevent a corrupt fire department from shaking down owners for money under the table? How does it prevent privatized fire departments from consolidating and reconsolidating until there are only few left? A very few which will then control pricing and access and, because of their financial clout, will also obtain disproportionate influence in government (see railroads, oil, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, banking and finance).
Self-regulation can't guarantee anything. You can gussy it up in an unproven theory all you want, but when it comes right down to it, you don't want to make social guarantees. Libertarians can't frame the debate that way and be regarded as anything but cranks, so they resort to either (call it what you will) intellectual dishonesty or a Pollyanna world view.
K: self regulation won't guarantee anything, and there are no guarantees in life either.
Fire spreads and there is no guarantee that damage will be limited or confined whether it is a fought by a public monopoly or not.
"You may argue that "most" buildings and condos will carry the insurance, but that's not the same as all."
Pretty much all will and require it from all tenants, that's common sense.
"And how does it prevent a corrupt fire department from shaking down owners for money under the table?"
It doesn't, but that is extortion and will be dealt with by the courts.
"How does it prevent privatized fire departments from consolidating and reconsolidating until there are only few left? A very few which will then control pricing and access and, because of their financial clout, will also obtain disproportionate influence in government (see railroads, oil, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, banking and finance)."
Consolidation can happen in a poorly run public system also. They would still have to answer to insurance companies and courts and face competition unlike a monopoly system. A public monopoly doesn't control pricing? The service still has to be paid for some way or another. Limiting access would be a business risk and possibly a legal one too.
Crony capitalism thrives in a big government system, like the one we have now. There is always some phony "reform" that will make things better. How many times have you heard that?
American history is full of sad accounts of building owners that not take adequate safety precautions against fires (the Triangle Building fire). That's why fire codes and regulations evolved.
To say that the free market will somehow make better provision for social services simply flies in the face of history. Police depts, fire depts, schools, sanitation depts etc were all privatized at one point or another, either here or in another country. They all failed to provide adequate public protection.
As for no guarantees, the Scandinavian countries guarantee guarantee health care to anyone with their borders. They deliver it, too, at much lower cost than the United States, and with better outcomes and higher levels of satisfaction than here. (91% of Danes, for example, are satisfied with the Danish health care system.) Moreover, until the 2009 recession, these countries all ran budget surpluses. So don't tell me there are no guarantees.
Anyway, ask the voters of any municipality in the country is they want to privatize fire protection. You won't get many takers.
Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of the challenges.
It was definitely informative. Your site is extremely helpful.
Thank you for sharing!
Also visit my homepage ; usa online gambling
Post a Comment