House fires and health care

In rural Tennessee last week, a house caught on fire. But the homeowner had failed to pay a required $75 fee for fire protection. So, when the firefighters arrived, they just stood there and watched the house burn to the ground.

According to a local TV report, "[t]he mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."

No "socialist" help-thy-neighbor stuff here!

But I think I prefer the "socialist" fire departments we have here in my area, where our tax dollars subsidize these critical services.

So what's the link to health care, you ask?

One of the best comments I've seen on this fire story was in response to a Michael Moore blog post on the subject on the Reader Supported News website.

The commenter, using the name "Phillip", shared the following good point:

"OK, so I'm guessing that Tea Baggers will think that these people 'brought it on themselves by refusing to pay for fire coverage'. But, what they will fail to notice is this is not much different from requiring people to carry health insurance (IF they can afford it). A significant distinction is that the reason people will be compelled to carry insurance is that NO ONE WILL EVER BE DENIED CARE!"

Ironically, I'm guessing that the people who are blaming the homeowner in this case are the same ones who are complaining about health care mandates.