To begin with, the latter is much more personally damaging, while the former, assuming you're not actually in the vicinity of the disaster when it occurs, is largely collateral.

As to why the government would pay for one over the other, I'd argue that the government is not responsible for reimbursing you for personal loss (that's what insurance is for).

Fire Fighting was originally funded by the community because a single fire was a threat to the entire community. A fire in your body is not.

Today, fighting fires is the smallest part of what fire rescue teams do. Because fires are so rare anymore, most small communities don't even have paid fire fighting services, but rather volunteer fire fighters. So in many cases, your neighbors don't have to pay for your fire dept anymore.

Why are fires so rare today when compared to before? Because the private, for-profit market has made homes safer than ever. Before you claim regulations are responsible, I will just point out that regulations don't innovate, they simply require people to get with the times.

Given the updated job role of firefighters, if you have a fire in your body, they will still respond, and they will save you. This was the case before ACA. But even so, they will be too late because a fire in your body will kill you way sooner than a fire in your house.