So, I don't think this is as dystopian as it sounds. But I'm open to being wrong. As far as I can tell they're not drawing from the hydrants, and not taking away people or resources from the...
So, I don't think this is as dystopian as it sounds. But I'm open to being wrong. As far as I can tell they're not drawing from the hydrants, and not taking away people or resources from the actual fire departments.
It's more like hiring private security or a concierge doctor. You could certainly pay 10 untrained people to protect your property from fires instead but it makes more sense to have professionals. And it sounds like the insurance companies pay them as much as or more than individuals might.
I don't know that I believe them that they had zero losses, there's no proof of that. The NDAs prevent us knowing. It's at least no more dystopian to me than rich people having bodyguards and while I'll admit that having rich people at all is at least a little dystopian, I don't think this is cyberpunk levels.
The existence of a paid tier encourages the elite class to allow degradation and hollowing out of public services. If the rich were forced to use the NHS I'm positive the waiting lists would be...
The existence of a paid tier encourages the elite class to allow degradation and hollowing out of public services.
If the rich were forced to use the NHS I'm positive the waiting lists would be shorter and quality of care higher.
The government can't afford the paid tier, not likely can politicians. I understand that concern, but that doesn't actually appear to be occurring. It's more akin to bodyguards or security guards...
The government can't afford the paid tier, not likely can politicians. I understand that concern, but that doesn't actually appear to be occurring. It's more akin to bodyguards or security guards than it is to privatization in my mind.
It's also impossible to ban - if I can hire ten random guys to protect my property during a fire, and pay for a water tank etc. I can pay for trained professionals. And so can the insurance company. How does one ban my ten paid handymen from protecting my property even if you somehow ban "private firefighters"
The dystopian element is having rich people but that's on the much lower end.
But that's kind of the point isn't it? The reason we "can't afford it" is because we're willing to let some people (companies inclusive) hoard giant sums of resources instead of properly funding...
The government can't afford the paid tier, not likely can politicians
But that's kind of the point isn't it? The reason we "can't afford it" is because we're willing to let some people (companies inclusive) hoard giant sums of resources instead of properly funding disaster relief programs.
It goes the same with education: Private schools gain money from rich families, and thus can pay better salaries and have better amenities. If those resources were funneled into the public schools instead, everyone would benefit.
I can pay for trained professionals. And so can the insurance company. How does one ban my ten paid handymen from protecting my property even if you somehow ban "private firefighters"
And those trained professionals have to follow rules or risk losing their rights to practice their profession. Like doctors or lawyers.
Ban insuring people who do paid firefighting without a license. Then ban the creation of privately owned firefighting companies. We fold firefighting under federal/state/local disaster relief programs, and fund them appropriately.
As far as I can tell the LAFD and the surrounding departments were as prepped as possible for a fire, just not four. They absolutely could always use more money and probably aren't fully prepared...
As far as I can tell the LAFD and the surrounding departments were as prepped as possible for a fire, just not four. They absolutely could always use more money and probably aren't fully prepared for climate change because no one is. But "we" can't afford elite bodyguards either and that isn't just because we let them get rich. No one would afford those elite bodyguards outside the secret service (or whatever) not "everyone would afford them if there weren't rich people"
Private schools that don't get government resources are similar, but the complaint is that they do siphon resources, because states give them money. The state is not funding these "private departments"
Banning private firefighters, who primarily seem to come from out of state gives zero resources to the public departments. And instead I now hire ten "lawn and home security guards" who happen to bring their own tanks of water and fire suppression materials. My point about politicians and governments was that it wouldn't supplant public services because the people in power can't afford it. Firefighting is already a folded into all that disaster relief. You're not going to take these ten guys anymore than the bodyguards are going to be drafted into the police or military. (I do believe that fire departments can draft people or equipment in the moment and certainly if that was needed and they're all there at the same time, have at)
Afaict this is not a case of letting other homes burn like the days before public FDs, nor a payment on demand system like a cyberpunk style. As I said, if letting people be rich at all is the dystopia, fine, but then it's not the firefighting, it's the houses. Given the way fires spread, let the insurance companies actually pay some money to stop it. As long as they're not interfering with the actual effort and not using the local water -which it sounds like they're not - the focus on them is misplaced.
Eliminate the ultra wealthy or their estates rather than fixating on the things they pay for. It's like being more upset that they have a private chef than that they're rich
That's a good point. I feel like taxing such services as a luxury could reduce that externality somewhat? Particularly if the service is so expensive that the folks who can afford it are a tiny...
That's a good point. I feel like taxing such services as a luxury could reduce that externality somewhat? Particularly if the service is so expensive that the folks who can afford it are a tiny minority.
Though the ethics of that approach with private healthcare feel murkier... With private fire insurance, the people are probably evacuating either way, so increasing prices for it (and reducing purchases accordingly) doesn't endanger an individual's life any further. That's not true for medical care, where the faster service of private healthcare is about more than just preserving property
Honestly just tax consumption. Depending on how you do it (my preferred method would be an energy tax and a land value tax), it is vastly simpler to administer and harder to evade.
Honestly just tax consumption. Depending on how you do it (my preferred method would be an energy tax and a land value tax), it is vastly simpler to administer and harder to evade.
I've always seen the problem with taxing consumption to be that the poor have to actually spend large portions of their income to survive, and the wealthy have the choice to spend only a small...
I've always seen the problem with taxing consumption to be that the poor have to actually spend large portions of their income to survive, and the wealthy have the choice to spend only a small portion. That could be mitigated with refunds, but that wouldn't account for the sort of person who comes into money quickly (say, by working a tech job for a few years) and then lives modestly on that for the rest of their lives.
Land value tax seems like it would be very useful, though I get the feeling it would result in farmers becoming secret arsonists of any development near their farms...
After reading your comments and thinking about it some more, I think I agree with you that it's not as bad as it sounds, for now. This is an obvious conflict of interest, manpower is finite, fire...
After reading your comments and thinking about it some more, I think I agree with you that it's not as bad as it sounds, for now. This is an obvious conflict of interest, manpower is finite, fire suppression materials are finite, water is finite. Maybe they do have enough resources and it's not a problem this time, but what about next time?
It's also different in the parity you drew with bodyguards. Billionaires hire bodyguards because they are potential targets, which is a problem unique to them. Fire, on the other hand, aren't quite as picky. And this entire thing gives off a distinct vibe that the lives and properties of billionaires are more important than normal people such as you and me. And that is why I am not ok with this.
I'd agree that it could be a problem in the future. It sounds like these companies provide their own water and fire suppression supplies, generally from outside of the area or purchased/stored a...
I'd agree that it could be a problem in the future.
It sounds like these companies provide their own water and fire suppression supplies, generally from outside of the area or purchased/stored a long time in advance and that the people don't live in the neighborhoods they're protecting. So short of drafting everyone and every possible fire suppression supply in the country/North America... I don't think it's currently a risk (and FWIW I think that if they were present and the LAFD or national forest service firefighters were present they could draft the supplies as needed. I'm not sure on that, it's hearsay, idk.)
With bodyguards, there are people actively being stalked by ex-partners, being threatened in domestic violence situations all the time, they're targets too. I see them as comparable for that reason. But yes, I agree that this is not an ideal situation and that wealth (and honestly this is probably millionaire/celebrity territory not just billionaire territory IMO but I can't confirm that either) inequality is bad and all of it.
If the insurance company wants to spend this cash to avoid paying out, it's probably not the end of the world. This is just small potatoes in the inequality, climate change bucket of shit and I don't see the point in focusing on it.
If anyone else has played Cyberpunk 2077, this (amongst other societal developments), reminds me of the trauma teams dispatched to only card-holding, insured members; or in Altered Carbon, where...
If anyone else has played Cyberpunk 2077, this (amongst other societal developments), reminds me of the trauma teams dispatched to only card-holding, insured members; or in Altered Carbon, where the police force is essentially privatized by the Meths.
I think in modern conversation people tend to throw around the word "dystopian", but in this case comparisons can be found directly in the pages of the key classics of the genre.
What a strange state of the world we find ourselves in.
He took it a step further though. He'd offer you pennies on the dollar for your house while it was burning and would only fight the fire after you relented and sold your house.
He took it a step further though. He'd offer you pennies on the dollar for your house while it was burning and would only fight the fire after you relented and sold your house.
So, I don't think this is as dystopian as it sounds. But I'm open to being wrong. As far as I can tell they're not drawing from the hydrants, and not taking away people or resources from the actual fire departments.
It's more like hiring private security or a concierge doctor. You could certainly pay 10 untrained people to protect your property from fires instead but it makes more sense to have professionals. And it sounds like the insurance companies pay them as much as or more than individuals might.
I don't know that I believe them that they had zero losses, there's no proof of that. The NDAs prevent us knowing. It's at least no more dystopian to me than rich people having bodyguards and while I'll admit that having rich people at all is at least a little dystopian, I don't think this is cyberpunk levels.
The existence of a paid tier encourages the elite class to allow degradation and hollowing out of public services.
If the rich were forced to use the NHS I'm positive the waiting lists would be shorter and quality of care higher.
The government can't afford the paid tier, not likely can politicians. I understand that concern, but that doesn't actually appear to be occurring. It's more akin to bodyguards or security guards than it is to privatization in my mind.
It's also impossible to ban - if I can hire ten random guys to protect my property during a fire, and pay for a water tank etc. I can pay for trained professionals. And so can the insurance company. How does one ban my ten paid handymen from protecting my property even if you somehow ban "private firefighters"
The dystopian element is having rich people but that's on the much lower end.
But that's kind of the point isn't it? The reason we "can't afford it" is because we're willing to let some people (companies inclusive) hoard giant sums of resources instead of properly funding disaster relief programs.
It goes the same with education: Private schools gain money from rich families, and thus can pay better salaries and have better amenities. If those resources were funneled into the public schools instead, everyone would benefit.
And those trained professionals have to follow rules or risk losing their rights to practice their profession. Like doctors or lawyers.
Ban insuring people who do paid firefighting without a license. Then ban the creation of privately owned firefighting companies. We fold firefighting under federal/state/local disaster relief programs, and fund them appropriately.
As far as I can tell the LAFD and the surrounding departments were as prepped as possible for a fire, just not four. They absolutely could always use more money and probably aren't fully prepared for climate change because no one is. But "we" can't afford elite bodyguards either and that isn't just because we let them get rich. No one would afford those elite bodyguards outside the secret service (or whatever) not "everyone would afford them if there weren't rich people"
Private schools that don't get government resources are similar, but the complaint is that they do siphon resources, because states give them money. The state is not funding these "private departments"
Banning private firefighters, who primarily seem to come from out of state gives zero resources to the public departments. And instead I now hire ten "lawn and home security guards" who happen to bring their own tanks of water and fire suppression materials. My point about politicians and governments was that it wouldn't supplant public services because the people in power can't afford it. Firefighting is already a folded into all that disaster relief. You're not going to take these ten guys anymore than the bodyguards are going to be drafted into the police or military. (I do believe that fire departments can draft people or equipment in the moment and certainly if that was needed and they're all there at the same time, have at)
Afaict this is not a case of letting other homes burn like the days before public FDs, nor a payment on demand system like a cyberpunk style. As I said, if letting people be rich at all is the dystopia, fine, but then it's not the firefighting, it's the houses. Given the way fires spread, let the insurance companies actually pay some money to stop it. As long as they're not interfering with the actual effort and not using the local water -which it sounds like they're not - the focus on them is misplaced.
Eliminate the ultra wealthy or their estates rather than fixating on the things they pay for. It's like being more upset that they have a private chef than that they're rich
That's a good point. I feel like taxing such services as a luxury could reduce that externality somewhat? Particularly if the service is so expensive that the folks who can afford it are a tiny minority.
Though the ethics of that approach with private healthcare feel murkier... With private fire insurance, the people are probably evacuating either way, so increasing prices for it (and reducing purchases accordingly) doesn't endanger an individual's life any further. That's not true for medical care, where the faster service of private healthcare is about more than just preserving property
Honestly just tax consumption. Depending on how you do it (my preferred method would be an energy tax and a land value tax), it is vastly simpler to administer and harder to evade.
I've always seen the problem with taxing consumption to be that the poor have to actually spend large portions of their income to survive, and the wealthy have the choice to spend only a small portion. That could be mitigated with refunds, but that wouldn't account for the sort of person who comes into money quickly (say, by working a tech job for a few years) and then lives modestly on that for the rest of their lives.
Land value tax seems like it would be very useful, though I get the feeling it would result in farmers becoming secret arsonists of any development near their farms...
After reading your comments and thinking about it some more, I think I agree with you that it's not as bad as it sounds, for now. This is an obvious conflict of interest, manpower is finite, fire suppression materials are finite, water is finite. Maybe they do have enough resources and it's not a problem this time, but what about next time?
It's also different in the parity you drew with bodyguards. Billionaires hire bodyguards because they are potential targets, which is a problem unique to them. Fire, on the other hand, aren't quite as picky. And this entire thing gives off a distinct vibe that the lives and properties of billionaires are more important than normal people such as you and me. And that is why I am not ok with this.
I'd agree that it could be a problem in the future.
It sounds like these companies provide their own water and fire suppression supplies, generally from outside of the area or purchased/stored a long time in advance and that the people don't live in the neighborhoods they're protecting. So short of drafting everyone and every possible fire suppression supply in the country/North America... I don't think it's currently a risk (and FWIW I think that if they were present and the LAFD or national forest service firefighters were present they could draft the supplies as needed. I'm not sure on that, it's hearsay, idk.)
With bodyguards, there are people actively being stalked by ex-partners, being threatened in domestic violence situations all the time, they're targets too. I see them as comparable for that reason. But yes, I agree that this is not an ideal situation and that wealth (and honestly this is probably millionaire/celebrity territory not just billionaire territory IMO but I can't confirm that either) inequality is bad and all of it.
If the insurance company wants to spend this cash to avoid paying out, it's probably not the end of the world. This is just small potatoes in the inequality, climate change bucket of shit and I don't see the point in focusing on it.
If anyone else has played Cyberpunk 2077, this (amongst other societal developments), reminds me of the trauma teams dispatched to only card-holding, insured members; or in Altered Carbon, where the police force is essentially privatized by the Meths.
I think in modern conversation people tend to throw around the word "dystopian", but in this case comparisons can be found directly in the pages of the key classics of the genre.
What a strange state of the world we find ourselves in.
Not just drawing from fiction either. Marcus Crassus employed private firefighters in ancient Rome.
He took it a step further though. He'd offer you pennies on the dollar for your house while it was burning and would only fight the fire after you relented and sold your house.