Billed for Rescue

[Paul in Qatar]

There is not much in the papers this morning. But in the the New York Times there is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/us/29rescue.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=new%20hampshire&st=cse

It seems the state of New Hampshire is billing people who need to be rescued if they were 'negligent." Most rescues are quite routine, the average bill is for $75. One guy was lost for a couple of nights and paid $16,000 for a helicopter that had to come and get him.

We see the same sort of ethical dilemma when millionaires on yachts need huge search-and-rescue operations at sea.

Should the emergency services bill people for their services?

I say no. I do not want someone to waste a single minute worrying about cost when they need rescue, or a fire truck or an ambulance. It is better when a person calls at the first hint of trouble. We do not want to discourage people from asking for help when the situation is relatively easy to resolve.

What say you?

[RTFirefly]

I think that in order to bill a rescuee, the state should have to go to court and prove negligence on the part of the person rescued. If they can't prove it in court, or if the costs are too small to bother going to court over, then they shouldn't have the authority to bill the rescued person by administrative fiat.

[Lynn Bodoni]

the State of New Hampshire is billing people for rescues stemming from their own negligence, like not taking a map on a hike, wandering away from a group or going out in dangerous conditions. It looks like they're mostly going after people who make really stupid and careless mistakes, so I'm OK with this. I've always said that willful stupidity should HURT. Going out in hazardous conditions, when it's not necessary, can endanger dozens of innocent rescuers. It's one thing if someone is caught in an unlikely natural disaster. It's quite another when someone is going into an area or situation that's known to be dangerous, especially if they are underprepared, or not prepared at all.

[JXJohns]

I would like to use Colorado as a better and more expensive example. Back country skiers who deliberately ski in closed areas and then need rescue should pay for their rescue. If for no other reason than to discourage the practice. Every time those morons go across the lines for an adrenaline rush and then get hurt or stuck in an avalanche, they put their eventual rescuers in the same potential peril through no fault of their own.

Sure, rescuers sign up for that risk when they don their badges, uniforms, etc. But they shouldn't have to be put in even more dangerous situations, rescuing those who can't stay within the lines, especially after those danger areas are clearly marked. IF the thought of having to pay for the $1000's of dollars that a potential high alpine rescue will cost, persuades skiers to stay in bounds, I'm all for it.

[Aswan]

Aren’t we already paying for these services? Common good and all that? If a policeman saves my life, do I now tip him? (Okay, that was snide. In fact, I’d actually buy the guy’s family Thanksgiving dinners for the rest of his life.)

But Lynn is correct: stupidity should be painful. If I deliberately place myself in a dangerous situation, should I have the expectation that someone will risk their life to save mine? I think not.

Unfortunately, who will bell the cat? Was I less stupid than you because I had a map and you didn’t so therefore the state should pick up my tab but you get billed? It’s a slippery slope. I’d like to think we live in a more altruistic society.

We are already too litigious; it’s not like the court dockets are empty these days. But I guess lawyers gotta eat too.

[Rand Rover]

We do not want to discourage people from asking for help when the situation is relatively easy to resolve.

What say you?

I say we DO want to discourage people from being so negligent that they need to be rescued and DO want to impose the costs of a rescue on those that are both responsible for incurring the costs and in the best position to reduce them (i.e., this is an example of "internalizing the externalities" so that people can correctly price proposed courses of action). Also, the rescuee can challenge the bill in court if he thinks he wasn't negligent or the bill is excessive.

[Manda JO]

What is negligent? Skiing in a closed area with posted signs, sure. But what about going backwoods camping when you don't know what you are doing as well as you think you do? What if you are crossing a stream and slip and break your leg--is that negligent because you didn't look carefully enough where you stepped? What if you don't realize how much you are sweating and get dehydrated and pass out? What if you just misread the map and get lost?

[flodnak]

To use an example from real life: Norway attracts base jumpers from around the world. In most places, base jumping from cliffs is legal here. However, a small number of cliffs are considered so dangerous that they are off-limits. One of them is the Troll Wall, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollveggen) a truly impressive wall of gneiss which has claimed a depressing number of lives. However, some jumpers break the law and there jump anyway.

If jumpers get stuck or die on the Troll Wall, the only way to get them (or their corpses) down is an expensive rescue operation that frequently puts their rescuers' lives in danger.

Under those circumstances I don't understand why base jumpers who get themselves into trouble on the Wall (or their estates....) should not be billed for part of the expense.

[billfish678]

It seems the state of New Hampshire is billing people who need to be rescued if they were 'negligent." Most rescues are quite routine, the average bill is for $75.


$75 ?!

What, did Andy just send Barney out on his lunch break for a few minutes?

I woulda thunk even the most mundane "rescue" would rack up a pretty heft bill in no time flat!

[Rand Rover]

What is negligent? Skiing in a closed area with posted signs, sure. But what about going backwoods camping when you don't know what you are doing as well as you think you do? What if you are crossing a stream and slip and break your leg--is that negligent because you didn't look carefully enough where you stepped? What if you don't realize how much you are sweating and get dehydrated and pass out? What if you just misread the map and get lost?

Negligence generally means failing to act in the manner that a reasonable person would in any given situation and is a question of fact for the jury to decide. So, none of your examples have an absolute answer; rather, it would depend on the precise facts and the mood of the jury that day.

[Canadjun]

I've done some majorly stupid things in my life (let's just say I'm paraplegic through no one's fault but my own and leave it at that). Simply because an activity was stupid I don't think someone should be billed for the rescue. The world is full of stupid people who underestimate risks and overestimate their abilities.

However I am also a great believer in "do what you are &^$%^ told to do if that order is made by an appropriately authorized and knowledgeable person". You see signs all over the place saying not to go into the back country because of avalanche hazards, then yes you bloody well should do as you are told. If you don't and you go bankrupt paying rescue bills, good. Maybe the next person will pay attention. Ditto going out after being told not to during flooding, and various other stupid things that people are properly warned to do or not to do.

[kanicbird]

I believe, we are made to help each other out of the means God gives us and as He leads us. As such when a person is in need of rescue it is time of the rescuers to give of themselves. In the true sense of giving (and love), it is to give without the expectation of return. It is also trust in God that He will provide for the rescuers, as you reap what you sow.

By making it a business model, IMHO you negate the promise of God to multiply blessings, and get your reward in cash from man.

[Queen Bruin]

I would like to use Colorado as a better and more expensive example. Back country skiers who deliberately ski in closed areas and then need rescue should pay for their rescue. If for no other reason than to discourage the practice. Every time those morons go across the lines for an adrenaline rush and then get hurt or stuck in an avalanche, they put their eventual rescuers in the same potential peril through no fault of their own.



Not to mention the yearly deluge of tourists that think they can head up a mountain in July with no coat and either freeze to death/must be saved from said mountain.

But then there is also the SAR card (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Ftuwe7OrPZwJ:www.coloradosarboard.org/csrb-documents/CORSAR%2520Card%2520Fact%2520Sheet.pdf+colorado+search+and+rescue+stamp&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us).

[Broomstick]

I believe, we are made to help each other out of the means God gives us and as He leads us. As such when a person is in need of rescue it is time of the rescuers to give of themselves. In the true sense of giving (and love), it is to give without the expectation of return. It is also trust in God that He will provide for the rescuers, as you reap what you sow.

By making it a business model, IMHO you negate the promise of God to multiply blessings, and get your reward in cash from man.
When god starts filling up the rescue chopper with gas and providing endless free supplies of equipment then we can rely on god to extract us from our own stupidity.

Until then someone has to pay the bills, somehow.

It's also inhumane of your god to expect rescuers to risk not only their own lives but that their spouses will be left bereaved and their children missing a parent because some stupid jackass decided to, for examples, jump off a cliff he was told not to, or ski through an avalanche zone, or go swimming in a boiling hot spring in Yellowstone. "Give without expectation of return"? You mean, they should work for free and not expect to return home at the end of the day or something?

[RTFirefly]

Negligence generally means failing to act in the manner that a reasonable person would in any given situation and is a question of fact for the jury to decide. So, none of your examples have an absolute answer; rather, it would depend on the precise facts and the mood of the jury that day. From the link in the OP:
The law leaves the decision to investigate a case up to the Fish and Game Department. If a case is found to meet the threshold of negligence, it is passed on to the attorney general, who makes the final decision on whether to bill the hikers.So the Fish and Game people are making the initial call on negligence, with the state AG's office reviewing their decision and making the final call. No jury involved.

I'd definitely prefer the burden to be on the state to go to court to establish negligence, rather than have the burden on the rescuees to have to go to court to prove they weren't negligent.

[Cervaise]

However I am also a great believer in "do what you are &^$%^ told to do if that order is made by an appropriately authorized and knowledgeable person". You see signs all over the place saying not to go into the back country because of avalanche hazards, then yes you bloody well should do as you are told. If you don't and you go bankrupt paying rescue bills, good. Maybe the next person will pay attention. Ditto going out after being told not to during flooding, and various other stupid things that people are properly warned to do or not to do.I agree, but enough people are stupidly ornery that simply being told "don't do this" will cause them to resist the instruction and do the opposite. Maybe what we need are signs at various points of backcountry ingress or otherwise hazardous locations that, rather than saying "don't," give information to the effect of, "between 2006 and the present, 43 people got into trouble here and required rescue/recovery; average cost was $9700; highest cost was $26,000; make the smart choice, cowboy." Sure, there would be an expense in maintaining the sign(s), but you just roll that into the cost of the rescue operation.

[Gangster Octopus]

I think it is ok as long as those getting rescued are given a written estimate before they are rescued.

"Sir, I am here to rescue you! Nod if you understand! The expected cost for this service is $325! I will need a $25 deposit....Do you have any money or credit cards on your person? You do? Great! If you agree to these terms please sign here....here...intitial here...a-a-a-nd here...and sign one more time! Do you have anything smaller than two twenties? No? OK, I will be right back with your change! Nod if you understand!"

[Telemark]

I do most of my hiking and skiing (both personal and guiding for the Appalachian Mountain Club) in NH so I've been following this for years. It's not really very new, this policy has been in place for the better part of a decade. What's new, apparently, is going after people's drivers license if they don't pay. Only one group that was assessed a fine actually refused to pay so far.

The only people who have been assessed a fine are people who were really beyond the pale. Gross negligence in bringing appropriate gear on a winter group overnight, getting drunk and then calling for help when they got lost, etc. In each of these cases I think any reasonable outdoorsperson would conclude that the parties were indeed reckless.

While some of the rescue efforts are publicly funded and they are organized under the auspices of Fish and Game, much of the actual resources (people and gear) come from volunteer rescue organizations such as Conway S&R and the Pemi S&R. These folks don't get paid. In many cases, the rescued parties donate money to these folks and F&G counts that as the end of things.

As a regular hiker and occasional S&R volunteer in NH I have no problems with the current situation. The new law about drivers licenses is the only new wrinkle. If you need a rescue in the Grand Canyon you will also receive a bill for several $1000 of helicopter time even if you did nothing wrong. This is nothing new.

[Rand Rover]

From the link in the OP:
So the Fish and Game people are making the initial call on negligence, with the state AG's office reviewing their decision and making the final call. No jury involved.

I'd definitely prefer the burden to be on the state to go to court to establish negligence, rather than have the burden on the rescuees to have to go to court to prove they weren't negligent.

There are two issues here--the order of events and the burden of proof. First, everything works like the process described in the link (i.e., bill now, court later)--speeding tickets, indictments for felonies, etc. You could be forced to pay a few hundred dollars just because a cop says you violated the law unless you go to court to fight about it. Second, the burden to prove negligence will be on the state if the rescuee decides to go to court. The fact that they sent the bill first doesn't change that.

[whorfin]

I say we DO want to discourage people from being so negligent that they need to be rescued and DO want to impose the costs of a rescue on those that are both responsible for incurring the costs and in the best position to reduce them (i.e., this is an example of "internalizing the externalities" so that people can correctly price proposed courses of action). Also, the rescuee can challenge the bill in court if he thinks he wasn't negligent or the bill is excessive.

The problem with this argument is that it applies with equal force to police, fire, military defense, and all other public goods provided by the government. I have a big problem with that.

"Yeah, you were pretty stupid to go walking in detroit after dark. It'll cost you to have the mugging investigated"

"Candles near a christmas tree? Not only are the guys in the building going to sue you, but you're paying for the fire department's response."

I also agree with the argument that the real problem isn't the stupid rich hikers-it's ensuring that whatever steps are taken to make people pay for a rescue doesn't discourage even one reasonable person (who wasn't negligent) from calling for help because they're afraid of being charged.

[Contrapuntal]

If if you call 911 to report an emergency, and they respond with EMT's, you will get billed regardless of why you were in that emergency, right? if I trip and fall and break my leg in my house, I'm on the hook for whatever the charges may be. Why should it be different for anyone else?

Alternately, why should my taxes subsidize someone else's dangerous hobby to the tune of free emergency services?

[whorfin]

If if you call 911 to report an emergency, and they respond with EMT's, you will get billed regardless of why you were in that emergency, right? if I trip and fall and break my leg in my house, I'm on the hook for whatever the charges may be. Why should it be different for anyone else?

Alternately, why should my taxes subsidize someone else's dangerous hobby to the tune of free emergency services?

Ah, but that's different. In that case, everybody gets billed-and hence, we don't worry that people who we think ought to get free "rescue" don't because they're worried they're on the hook for the bill.

If, as a society, we decide "we won't provide public rescues unless someone pays," I'd disagree, but I wouldn't have a problem with it conceptually--as everyone would know beforehand what the deal is. I have a much bigger problem with a system which we think ought to be provided at the public expense, then start making fine distinctions on who qualifies--and demand that people in an emergency figure out if they do or don't qualify.

[Mosier]

Should rescuers be expected to perform their services for free? Or should taxpayers get the bill?

[Contrapuntal]

Ah, but that's different. In that case, everybody gets billed-and hence, we don't worry that people who we think ought to get free "rescue" don't because they're worried they're on the hook for the bill.

If, as a society, we decide "we won't provide public rescues unless someone pays," I'd disagree, but I wouldn't have a problem with it conceptually--as everyone would know beforehand what the deal is. I have a much bigger problem with a system which we think ought to be provided at the public expense, then start making fine distinctions on who qualifies--and demand that people in an emergency figure out if they do or don't qualify.This is the question as posed by the OP.

Should the emergency services bill people for their services?

Where I live, the answer is yes, they already are. However, I don't see that there is much of a "fine distinction" between rock climbing and washing the breakfast dishes. The former is inherently dangerous, so it is much more likely that rescues will be required. And said rescues will be several orders of magnitude more dangerous and expensive to perform. Why should I subsidize an adrenaline junkie who is basically just indulging his hobby, and looking for a fix? Why shouldn't he assume the risk and pay the tab himself?


Should rescuers be expected to perform their services for free? Or should taxpayers get the bill? In these cases, I say Option 3 : The rescuee pays.

[Manda JO]

This is the question as posed by the OP.
Where I live, the answer is yes, they already are. However, I don't see that there is much of a "fine distinction" between rock climbing and washing the breakfast dishes. The former is inherently dangerous, so it is much more likely that rescues will be required. And said rescues will be several orders of magnitude more dangerous and expensive to perform. Why should I subsidize an adrenaline junkie who is basically just indulging his hobby, and looking for a fix? Why shouldn't he assume the risk and pay the tab himself?


But if you leave a pan on the stove and your house catches on fire, you aren't charged by the fire department. Why is that different?

[whorfin]

This is the question as posed by the OP.

Should the emergency services bill people for their services?

Where I live, the answer is yes, they already are. However, I don't see that there is much of a "fine distinction" between rock climbing and washing the breakfast dishes. The former is inherently dangerous, so it is much more likely that rescues will be required. And said rescues will be several orders of magnitude more dangerous and expensive to perform. Why should I subsidize an adrenaline junkie who is basically just indulging his hobby, and looking for a fix? Why shouldn't he assume the risk and pay the tab himself?


In these cases, I say Option 3 : The rescuee pays.

Well, but the OP poses it in the context of a system where billing only occurs through negligence. Also, if you want to be consistent, why should I subsidize any risk you undertake in washing your dishes, or in making toast? If we're making the argument that people should pay for emergency responses because I shouldn't subsidize anyone else's emergency services, then it applies equally to the risks in your sink and those in the mountains.

On that line, I might contend that we spend far more in emergency responses to incidents caused by sinks (or cooking) than we do for mountain-climbing rescues (mountain climbing is riskier, and rescues are more expensive, but there's the enormously greater volume of sink-related activity in which accidents can happen requiring emergency responses (both in terms of number of people washing dishes, and time spent washing dishes), which means there are likely far more emergency responses for dishwashing related problems (mainly ambulance, some fire due to leaks or shorts, and potentially police due to domestic disputes over who does the dishes), and I might contend that that volume would overwhelm the much greater cost of a mountainclimbing rescue)

Further, there are huge free-rider problems to paying for emergency services.

1) If everyone else on my block pays for police protection, and they catch the bad guy, we're all better off. Even if I didn't pay.

2) If the rest of those guys pay for fire coverage, my house will be at far lower risk (as it's less likely to catch on fire from an uncontrolled fire next door).

Hence, many rational people won't pay for such coverage, as they'll get much of the societal benefits. The system can't practically ask people to pay for all the benefits they receive-we have to make them (through taxes) in most cases. Hence, in the context of most emergency services, it's going to be pretty difficult to exclude nonpayers from many of the benefits of those services-and that is necessary in order to have a pay-for-play pricing system).

[RTFirefly]

There are two issues here--the order of events and the burden of proof. Actually, there are three issues: the order of events, the burden of proof, and the burden of cost and action.

First, everything works like the process described in the link (i.e., bill now, court later)--speeding tickets, indictments for felonies, etc. You could be forced to pay a few hundred dollars just because a cop says you violated the law unless you go to court to fight about it. The difference is that speeding is pretty clear - if the number on my speedometer is higher than the number on the big sign beside the road, a cop can ticket me. And felonies are sufficiently serious crimes that most of us don't even get near the blurry area, when there is one. Negligence is much blurrier than speeding, and a good deal easier to stumble into than felonious conduct is.

Second, the burden to prove negligence will be on the state if the rescuee decides to go to court. The fact that they sent the bill first doesn't change that.Won't argue with you there.

But it's a lot easier to send out a bill than to go to court. Putting the burden of action on the state to go to court in order to get to the point where the rescuee is looking at a bill will protect citizens against injudicious use of this power.

[Wiggie]

Every time I hear or read about such a thing, I'm left scratching my head, because I've never, ever had anyone call an ambulance for me that I didn't get a bill, and it has NEVER been due to negligence or stupidity on my part; it's ALWAYS been due to a medical condition I have no control over. This has been somewhere between 10-15 times in 20 years and has been in at least 5 different jurisdictions. Billed every time.

[Markxxx]

I think they should make an attempt to recover the costs.

Look if a person goes hiking they know there is a possiblity of them getting lost. Perhaps they could sell insurance in those areas. Or they could require permits to hike and charge for them.

I know one lady I worked with in Chicago was in disgust when the billed her for an ambulance ride. I told her to submit it to her insurance, and they paid it in full.

Now you see if the City of Chicago had not even tried to collect they would've been out an expense that WAS covered.

[sqweels]

I believe, we are made to help each other out of the means God gives us and as He leads us. As such when a person is in need of rescue it is time of the rescuers to give of themselves. In the true sense of giving (and love), it is to give without the expectation of return. It is also trust in God that He will provide for the rescuers, as you reap what you sow.

By making it a business model, IMHO you negate the promise of God to multiply blessings, and get your reward in cash from man.
But God is providing for the rescuers--by making the rescuees hand over the money He gave them or will help them earn in the near future. Or rather, God guided the state legislatures to ensure the taxpayers reap back what they have sown by funding the rescue teams that God deploys in case of emergency.

[RaftPeople]

I think it is ok as long as those getting rescued are given a written estimate before they are rescued.

"Sir, I am here to rescue you! Nod if you understand! The expected cost for this service is $325! I will need a $25 deposit....Do you have any money or credit cards on your person? You do? Great! If you agree to these terms please sign here....here...intitial here...a-a-a-nd here...and sign one more time! Do you have anything smaller than two twenties? No? OK, I will be right back with your change! Nod if you understand!"


"You will also be glad to know that we have a 10% discount on snow related rescues this month, as well as a 2 for 1 helicopter rescue, is there anyone else in your party?"

[Telemark]

Look if a person goes hiking they know there is a possiblity of them getting lost. Perhaps they could sell insurance in those areas. Or they could require permits to hike and charge for them.
This is not the case in NH. If you aren't deemed negligent you will receive no bill for rescue services, no matter how much they cost. Rescue insurance is very common in Europe and in parts of the Rockies (mainly Canada IIRC) but not here in the east.

There is a strong resistance (though not universal) in the rescue community NOT to charge people for rescues. They are worried that people will delay calling for help when they need it because of fear of being charged. Instead they wait until it is critical. What could have been a walk out turns into an 18 hour litter carry instead, or worse, people die.

[Dangerosa]

Most of this is public land, right?

Offer up an insurance option when you buy your season park pass - get the insurance and it will pay for rescue, don't get the insurance and you'll get a bill.

Regardless of how negligent you were.

If you get ill on a cruise ship and have to be medvac'd out, you'd better have taken out trip insurance - the bill gets hefty fast.

[Telemark]

This is mostly national forest - no permits needed or wanted. There are dozens and dozens of trailheads, plus lots of private land inholdings and abutments. But this is also on state parks, private land that has hiking trails, rivers and lakes that are public. None of these in NH have any permit system (except for parking, but that's another story.)

They do this for climbers in Denali National Park, your permit to climb covers rescue costs. There would be no easy way to implement this on the combination of federal, state, and private land involved.

[even sven]

I have no problem with this, but I think the rules should be clear, consistent and laid out beforehand. It shouldn't be an arbitrary decision made after the fact. As has been mentioned before, it is standard for people to be billed for their rescue in non-remote situations. I don't see why something happening in the woods would be different.

Anyway, why should a municipality with some dangerous attraction have to suck up the costs of rescuing people who decide to take their lives into their own hands?

[Algher]

I have no problem with this, but I think the rules should be clear, consistent and laid out beforehand. It shouldn't be an arbitrary decision made after the fact. As has been mentioned before, it is standard for people to be billed for their rescue in non-remote situations. I don't see why something happening in the woods would be different.

Anyway, why should a municipality with some dangerous attraction have to suck up the costs of rescuing people who decide to take their lives into their own hands?

They don't - there are several options:
They can just let them die.
They can pass taxes to pay for it, and target taxes on tourist things (hotel rooms, out-of-town fishing or hunting permits, lift tickets)
They can have a volunteer only rescue squad
They can tax themselves.
They can try to recover the costs from a portion of those who are rescued.

I have no problem with charging some of the people who are rescued who violate some type of standard - though the reasonable person standard is a tough one when it comes to the backcountry. What I consider reasonable is far from what my father thinks is reasonable. He won't go into the backcountry without enough supplies to survive a zombie attack. I like to see how light I can pack and still be comfortable. He might need rescuing due to exhaustion, while I might get hit with hunger or hypo due to insufficient food / shelter. Someone else might find BOTH of us acting "unreasonably" - even though we both have had survival training and both of us could (and have) easily teach a class in our respective types backcountry living.

[Grumman]

Common good and all that?
No.

Police work can be considered a common good, because investigating a crime against person A will slightly reduce the likelihood that a crime will be committed against anyone else - both because that particular criminal may be caught and prevented from reoffending, and because catching that criminal serves as a deterrent to other criminals.

Rescuing someone is not a common good, because rescuing person A after he got lost in the outback does not provide significant benefit to the rest of the population.

[Paul in Qatar]

It allows the entire population to go into the woods on a cold day knowing they will not die. Everyone gets protection from the danger.

[billfish678]

No.

Police work can be considered a common good, because investigating a crime against person A will slightly reduce the likelihood that a crime will be committed against anyone else - both because that particular criminal may be caught and prevented from reoffending, and because catching that criminal serves as a deterrent to other criminals.

Rescuing someone is not a common good, because rescuing person A after he got lost in the outback does not provide significant benefit to the rest of the population.

thats true but,

You rescue someone who pays taxes, and unless it was one EXPENSIVE rescue, in the long run they will still be a net economic and probably social positive to society, moreso than having letting them die at that point in time.

Though, on second thought, maybe we shouldn't rescue criminals, retires, and lawyers. Oops thats only two things. Hi Opal.

[JXJohns]

It allows the entire population to go into the woods on a cold day knowing they will not die. Everyone gets protection from the danger.
I certainly would not go that far. It gives them hope that if they can be found alive that they might not die. But it is no protection from danger at all. Only the hope of rescue or recovery of their remains prior to the local critters getting to them.

[Zebra]

Well I owe the City of New York $500 for my rescue.


Now keep in mind that in NYC, a majority of the people don't own a car. I was washing the dishes and a glass broke and I cut my hand pretty badly.

My neighbor, the only one I know who owns a car, wasn't home so 911 had to be called. An ambulance came, they washed my wound, bound it up and drove me 15 blocks to the nearest ER.

A year and half later, I get a bill for $500.

Insurance would have covered it, if I had filed for it sooner.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

US society/government already tries way to hard to protect us from ourselved. I'm all for removing signs that say "No hiking past this point" and replacing them with signs that read "By passing this point, you accept responsibility for your actions, and may be billed for an rescue needed". Then give the rescue agencies the ability to bill for their services, in cases of neglect on the part of the rescuee.

So if you are driving on a public road, and a huge rock falls on you, rescue is on us. If you wander out onto a lake in Minnesota, in April, with people warning you that the ice is thin, then you get to foot the bill.

[Fish]

It allows the entire population to go into the woods on a cold day knowing they will not die. Everyone gets protection from the danger.
Respectfully I would like to submit this is a terrible thing to encourage people to think. Being out alone in the elements without food or shelter can be dangerous and potentially lethal. Preparation, equipment, common sense, and a healthy respect for danger is essential.

You said you didn't want anyone wasting even 60 seconds wondering about the cost before calling in for a rescue. I would rather they spend 60 seconds thinking, "Gosh, I wonder if there's anything I might need to know before wandering away into the mountains without food or water?"

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of putting up "Don't Go Past This Point, Stupid" signs, because then someone's simply bound to say "I can't be responsible for knowing it was dangerous because I didn't see a sign."

[Burton]

Negligence generally means failing to act in the manner that a reasonable person would in any given situation and is a question of fact for the jury to decide. So, none of your examples have an absolute answer; rather, it would depend on the precise facts and the mood of the jury that day.

If you refuse to pay the state shouldn't be able to get a judgment without a jury trial but that seems a huge waste of the courts time and the State's revenue.

I can see some surcharge in cases of gross misconduct perhaps. i.e. ones which involve trespass, or inner tubing during a flood.

[sailor]

"You will also be glad to know that we have a 10% discount on snow related rescues this month, as well as a 2 for 1 helicopter rescue, is there anyone else in your party?" And the service is free if you own shares in the government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY

[Contrapuntal]

But if you leave a pan on the stove and your house catches on fire, you aren't charged by the fire department. Why is that different?Well, no one is charged by the fire department. Or the police department, for that matter. So if the rock climber starts a kitchen fire on Mt. Whaysay and needs to have it extinguished by the fire department, then I say there should be no charge.

But since we aren't talking about the fire department, I'm not sure what the relevance is.




Well, but the OP poses it in the context of a system where billing only occurs through negligence.So EMS is free in that jurisdiction? I didn't get that from the article. Where did you?

Also, if you want to be consistent, why should I subsidize any risk you undertake in washing your dishes, or in making toast?When I cut my finger at work EMS was called. All they did was clean and dress the wound. They did not transport me to the hospital. The bill was $300. I'm not sure how much of that was subsidized. Damn little, I suspect. However, my point is that if I am charged for a routine emergency call, why should someone who was rescued from a potentially life threatening situation not be charged? If you want to assert that everything should be pay as you go, well that's another argument.


If we're making the argument that people should pay for emergency responses because I shouldn't subsidize anyone else's emergency services, then it applies equally to the risks in your sink and those in the mountains.I'm not making that argument, although if I were I would point out that mountain activities are more risky by several orders of magnitude, so applying the associated charges "equally" would result in the rescuee being charged more, not less.

[Fish]

If anybody's keen to declare equivalence between the use of a fire department and of emergency search-and-rescue, then I'd like to see the stats.

There are hundreds of millions of people who live in houses in the United States. Surely a small number of them actually catch fire and burn completely to the ground. Some jurisdictions enact levies — local voluntary voter-approved taxes — to subsidize fire departments, to be ready should a fire occur. To prevent fires we have building codes, electrical inspections, and governmental oversight. To minimize fire damages we have hydrants and smoke detectors and handheld extinguishers and an emergency-response communications network.

There are, by comparison, tens of thousands of mountaineers and dedicated backwoods skiers. There are no building codes overseeing one's safety if one is an irresponsible dumbass, no "You're Fucking Stupid" detector that goes off when one wanders off the beaten path past signs reading "Avalanche Danger, You Will Die."

Why do we subsidize fire, and not emergency rescue?

If your house burns out of control, then so might mine next door, and the house beyond that. Neighborhoods could be lost. How many times has history seen a destructive city-wide blaze? San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, and London come to mind without even concentrating.

Fire, in a word, is contagious. Disease is contagious. We subsidize prevention of them. How many people were inexplicably lost as a result of the Amelia Earhart disappearance?

Being lost is not contagious. If someone gets lost out in avalanche country, I'm in no danger of being lost as well. There's no cascade failure as with uncontrolled fire.

[Telemark]

There are, by comparison, tens of thousands of mountaineers and dedicated backwoods skiers.
The White Mountains of NH get millions of visitors every year. The vast majority of S&R calls we see here are for novice or fairly new hikers, not experienced mountaineers. (Not that it can't happen, but it rarely does.) Even a broken ankle on Franconia Ridge (a challenging but extremely popular day hike) might require a helicopter evac because a litter carry from up there requires 20 people and 8+ hours. There was a case two years ago of a woman who was hiking with her family and a rock fell on her and killed her. It was over 2 hours before help reached them - no cell coverage and the group didn't know where to go for help. The were literally just walking along a trail near a waterfall, it could have happened to anyone.

Lots of people use the White Mountains, most for simple day trips where they often don't carry the necessary gear for an overnight. The tourist industry (and the economy) of Northern NH depends on them. It's in their best interest that people feel comfortable in the mountains. The danger is to do this while avoiding a nanny state or having people assume help is just a phone call away.

[Fish]

Sure — the National Parks, as a whole, have millions of visitors. The vast majority of them do not need to be rescued by helicopter because they ventured twenty yards off the trail to tread on the alpine meadows.

I'd have to guess that the majority of the people who need expensive search-and-rescue efforts are the ones who go very far off the beaten path, surely a smaller figure.

[Telemark]

I'd have to guess that the majority of the people who need expensive search-and-rescue efforts are the ones who go very far off the beaten path, surely a smaller figure.
In NH, where 6 million venture in the White Mountain National Forest each year, very little terrain is out of day hike range. Several 100,000 hike each year, and the majority of the injuries/rescues/searches are not people far off the beaten path. They happen on popular hiking trails most of the time. While the majority of visitors don't go too far from the road, many 100,000 do and most of them only hike 2 or 3 times a year.

Winter rescues are more dangerous and can be costly, but the majority of rescues take place in summer when the hoards are on the trails. The other big chunk of rescues in NH come from alcohol related incidents. Lots of folks party in the woods.

ETA - Another big source of rescue operations is snowmobilers.

[Fubaya]

But if you leave a pan on the stove and your house catches on fire, you aren't charged by the fire department. Why is that different?Actually, many fire departments do charge for a fire call. Homeowners insurance usually covers it.

[buttonjockey308]

I believe, we are made to help each other out of the means God gives us and as He leads us. As such when a person is in need of rescue it is time of the rescuers to give of themselves. In the true sense of giving (and love), it is to give without the expectation of return. It is also trust in God that He will provide for the rescuers, as you reap what you sow.

By making it a business model, IMHO you negate the promise of God to multiply blessings, and get your reward in cash from man.


Oh, Shut Up.

As far as the OP, yes, the state SHOULD charge. Many (mostly rural) jusridictions allow, as Fubaya points out for the fire department to bill for response only because they aren't funded the same way as the police departments and have no way to raise their own revenue. Futher, most ambulance companies public and private bill, to some extent, your insurance company, for the ride and supplies. The SERIVCE is free, billed to the taxpayer, the raw materials, so to speak, are on you. Same goes with unscrewing a screwed up situation (i.e. rescue). The rescuers come with their tools and skills, when they need to use a rope to pull you up, that rope can never be used for another rescue and is pulled from service. That's one cost of many to the responding agency.. If you go where you shouldn't and do things that risk your life, why should WE pay for YOU to be an idiot?

[buttonjockey308]

If anybody's keen to declare equivalence between the use of a fire department and of emergency search-and-rescue, then I'd like to see the stats.

There are hundreds of millions of people who live in houses in the United States. Surely a small number of them actually catch fire and burn completely to the ground. Some jurisdictions enact levies — local voluntary voter-approved taxes — to subsidize fire departments, to be ready should a fire occur. To prevent fires we have building codes, electrical inspections, and governmental oversight. To minimize fire damages we have hydrants and smoke detectors and handheld extinguishers and an emergency-response communications network.

There are, by comparison, tens of thousands of mountaineers and dedicated backwoods skiers. There are no building codes overseeing one's safety if one is an irresponsible dumbass, no "You're Fucking Stupid" detector that goes off when one wanders off the beaten path past signs reading "Avalanche Danger, You Will Die."

Why do we subsidize fire, and not emergency rescue?

If your house burns out of control, then so might mine next door, and the house beyond that. Neighborhoods could be lost. How many times has history seen a destructive city-wide blaze? San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, and London come to mind without even concentrating.

Fire, in a word, is contagious. Disease is contagious. We subsidize prevention of them. How many people were inexplicably lost as a result of the Amelia Earhart disappearance?

Being lost is not contagious. If someone gets lost out in avalanche country, I'm in no danger of being lost as well. There's no cascade failure as with uncontrolled fire.

We DO subsidize rescue. We subsidize essentially EVERYTHING. Fire departments do many times more than emergency rescue companies/agencies on a daily basis from responding to CO calls to lifting people who've fallen (and can't get up, ha!). Because there isn't a daily, screaming need for full-on search and rescue battalions, they aren't funded to the extent that fire departments are because funding an outfit that does, essentially nothing, for the greater part of the year is a poor use of taxpayer funds. Imagine buying a boat for yourself, outfitting it with the latest and greatest in boating technology, filling it with fuel, pulling it into a dock, and leaving it alone there for 9 months. Would that be a good return on your investment, or would you sell it? Same deal.

[Fish]

In NH, where 6 million venture in the White Mountain National Forest each year, very little terrain is out of day hike range. Several 100,000 hike each year, and the majority of the injuries/rescues/searches are not people far off the beaten path. They happen on popular hiking trails most of the time. While the majority of visitors don't go too far from the road, many 100,000 do and most of them only hike 2 or 3 times a year.
On a per-person per-hour rate, hiking out in the woods beyond the limits of the trail sure seems like it would be riskier behavior than staying at home.

[Telemark]

On a per-person per-hour rate, hiking out in the woods beyond the limits of the trail sure seems like it would be riskier behavior than staying at home.
What do you mean, beyond the limits of the trail? Most rescues are people who got injured on the trail. And of the ones that occur off trails it's because the hikers got lost, not because they went bushwacking.

Sure, hiking (or anything outdoors) is more dangerous then staying at home, but the riskiest part of the trip statistically is still the drive to the trailhead. We're not talking alpine mountaineering, people here hike all the time. It is IMO a reasonable risk to assume - it's also the lifeblood of the economy in summer. The locals want to encourage people to hike.

[furt]

Maybe what we need are signs at various points of backcountry ingress or otherwise hazardous locations that, rather than saying "don't," give information to the effect of, "between 2006 and the present, 43 people got into trouble here and required rescue/recovery; average cost was $9700; highest cost was $26,000; make the smart choice, cowboy."That sounds good, and it is, but I doubt it would deter the determinedly stupid. On the way up Mount Washington (in the Whites) there is a sign saying, essentially, "People die up here all the time. Even in summer, this mountain kills people." Actually, I think it might even say something like "dozens have died." This sign is something like 100 yards past an enclosed, heated, staffed shelter.

And I met a guy who walked past that sign, after dark, on a night that was forecast for rain.

THAT's the kind of idiot we're talking about here. As Telemark has indicated, they're not doing this to the slightly-dumb people who have an outdated map or a broken tent. They're charging the willfully obtuse, the doggedly, selfishly arrogant assholes who think a pair of boots and some testosterone makes them Bear Grylls, and who interpret warning signs as a challenge to their manhood.

Fuck those guys. Make 'em pay every penny.

[Zebra]

So should I have to pay $500 for a simple ambulance run in Brooklyn NY?

[Telemark]

On the way up Mount Washington (in the Whites) there is a sign saying, essentially, "People die up here all the time. Even in summer, this mountain kills people." Actually, I think it might even say something like "dozens have died." This sign is something like 100 yards past an enclosed, heated, staffed shelter.
http://www.hikethewhites.com/photos/warning_sign.jpg

Those signs are at the major trailheads and near treeline on the popular trails. Most people take their pictures with the sign, but I don't know if they ever actually read it.

[ralph124c]

I wonder how much it costs the US Coastguard/taxpayers when one of those deep-diving fools (on the Andea Doria) needs a rescue?
-dispatch a helicopter from New London (maybe $50,000?)
-send CG Cutter (with doctor on board)-$25,000?
-ready medical trauma team/.recompression chamber (with medical specialists)-$30,000?
All tghis because some nitwit wants a teacup from a 50-year old shipwreck!

[furt]

So should I have to pay $500 for a simple ambulance run in Brooklyn NY?Who are you talking to? I don't think anyone has addressed your issue, which is unrelated to the OP's question.

[furt]

http://www.hikethewhites.com/photos/warning_sign.jpg

Those signs are at the major trailheads and near treeline on the popular trails. Most people take their pictures with the sign, but I don't know if they ever actually read it.Yeah, that was it I guess ... though no trees next to Lake of the Clouds, obviously...

[Zebra]

Who are you talking to? I don't think anyone has addressed your issue, which is unrelated to the OP's question.

Funny I thought the OP's question was:
Should the emergency services bill people for their services?



Sure, most of the talk has been about people hiking in the woods or mountains and some people have noted that 'for ordinary stuff' you shouldn't pay but for dangerous stuff you do, you should pay. That stuff out in the 'wilds' is for people on their own but in the city, people are on the hook to pay as well. Rather than an abstract case, I'm putting forth a real world example for people to ponder.

If I were to cut my hand today, I would probably walk the 15 blocks to the ER, and hope I don't pass out on the way.

The thing is, we do pay for all of this stuff. The budget for the Coast Guard is part of the Federal Government. All the state agencies have budgets for the very expense of Search and Rescue as well and I'm pretty sure that they all also getting Federal dollars to help.

Since we have already paid for it, I don't see why we should pay again.

[hdc_bst]

The thing is, we do pay for all of this stuff. The budget for the Coast Guard is part of the Federal Government. All the state agencies have budgets for the very expense of Search and Rescue as well and I'm pretty sure that they all also getting Federal dollars to help.

Since we have already paid for it, I don't see why we should pay again.

It is not at all clear that the 'we have already paid for it.' Yes, the operating costs of emergency service will be paid. I thinks its inevitable that some of the costs will be paid by the government (society as a whole through taxation) due to the necessity of having these services available even if 'business' is bad. That does not mean that the individual using the service cannot pay some of the burden, particularly since actually using these services increases their operating costs.

In one model, the government pays 100% and the burden of payment is as evenly spread through society as tax policy allows.

In a second model, the government pays some portion of the services' budget, and individuals requiring the service pay the remainder. This spreads the burden more towards those using the service. Think of it as co-insurance.

The second model is not 'paying again' in the sense that you are being charged for something that has already been paid for completely. It is 'paying again' in the sense that your money pays for portions of something you used through two different channels.

Deciding what the appropriate balance of cost-sharing from 0-100% government contributions is a social debate. My opinion is that the balance should seldom be 100% (free to the user) and that it should be reduced significantly in cases of negligence. What constitutes 'negligence' should be decided by judge or jury when contested.

[buttonjockey308]

So should I have to pay $500 for a simple ambulance run in Brooklyn NY?

No, your insurance should, but you'd be responsible if you had no insurance, or at least you should be.

If you get taken ALS (advanced life support) from a scene to a hospital, you require IV's including catheter, fluid, tubing and tournequet. Monitor tape, drugs if necessary, oxygen including tubing and appliances, bandages, towels and splinting if necessary, monitor electrode pads and gel. All of these are replaceable, disposable resources.

The ambulance itself, the men and women who staff it and their continuing education, the maintenance on it, the outfitting with emergency warning equipment and stretcher, all have already been paid for.

You're paying for the parts, you've already paid for the labor

[Telemark]

Here's the most recent example of a rescue that is going to probably result in a fine.

http://wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2008/News_2008_Q4/Search_Young_RI_Hikers_123108.html

[Fish]

What do you mean, beyond the limits of the trail? Most rescues are people who got injured on the trail.
But the freakin' expensive $30,000 rescues involving helicopters and the sides of mountains involve people voluntarily engaging in dangerous behavior. I live 75 miles from Mt. Rainier and we have one or two of these per summer. For the cost of saving one dingbat who won't follow the trail you could save fifty others who merely got lost at sea level.

The question is, do the dingbats end up paying the $30,000 for their own incompetence, or do we cut the budget down for the rest of the people?
We're not talking alpine mountaineering, people here hike all the time. It is IMO a reasonable risk to assume - it's also the lifeblood of the economy in summer. The locals want to encourage people to hike.
You're saying rescue is a business expense?

[Grumman]

Since we have already paid for it, I don't see why we should pay again.
By covering part of the costs by charging the people being rescued, you can reduce the amount that must be paid by the taxpayer. This is primary school level maths.

[intention]

I think it is ok as long as those getting rescued are given a written estimate before they are rescued.

"Sir, I am here to rescue you! Nod if you understand! The expected cost for this service is $325! I will need a $25 deposit....Do you have any money or credit cards on your person? You do? Great! If you agree to these terms please sign here....here...intitial here...a-a-a-nd here...and sign one more time! Do you have anything smaller than two twenties? No? OK, I will be right back with your change! Nod if you understand!"Curiously, something very much like this goes on with some rescues at sea.

Bear in mind that there are lots and lots of ships that get in danger when there is no Coast Guard, or where the CG will rescue the people but not the boat.

In that case, private companies with oceangoing tugs may offer the captain of the ship what is called "Lloyds Open Form". This cuts through all of the negotiation you rightly lampooned above, to the heart of the matter.

Lloyds Open Form means that at a later date, a Maritime Board in Lloyds of London will say how much the rescue was worth. The Board takes into account the location, the circumstances, the weather, the probability of total loss, what the salvors actually had to do, the risk to the salvors, the values of the vessel and the ship, and a host of other factors. The Board then puts a dollar figure on the value of the rescue.

As a man whose lifetime has been filled with commercial fishing and sport diving and sailing and salvage diving, I like it that the Coast Guard is there. However, the one time I probably should have called the Coasties, I couldn't do it. At that moment, sailing single-handed with darkness lowering, one window stove in, and the waves higher than the mast, I realized I couldn't face the headlines. "Idiot Rescued at Sea". "Fool and His Boat Soon Parted". I had the radio ... but I couldn't make the call.

I do think there should be some penalty attached to flagrantly negligent behavior. There is a "reasonable seaman" standard, and I and my commercial fisherman friends would agree on what was unreasonable. We also would all have to admit to having breached, nay, flagrantly flouted that reasonable standard on occasion. However, that's different than gross negligence.

Fortunately, on the ocean, usually no external justice, punishment, penalty, or retribution is needed. The ocean is eminently capable of providing all of those, in excess. As I said, there should be some penalty attached to gross negligence on the ocean ... and there generally is.

The ocean situation is different from the mountains in another regard, in that the captain is responsible for the passengers. They are deemed innocents in the deal, so a rescue is done on that basis as well.

However, maritime law often requires the company owning the ship to pay for the rescue if they have been negligent. Here's a case from Alaska (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/218081_freighter30.html)

Thinking about the different examples offered, of New Hampshire, and Mount Ranier, and the ocean, I see various things:

1. Having to pay for part or all of the costs of a rescue is not uncommon.

2. In relatively safe areas, where the usual problem is a sprained ankle or a twisted knee, economic reasons may favor a "no-pay, have a great time" rescue system. Of course, no system is "no-pay", so more accurately that would be "Taxpayer pays".

3. If I were in charge of Ranier rescues, there would be a "no-users-fees" rescue season, and a "we'll come, but it'll cost ya" season. I'd likely charge for rescues above a certain elevation as well. For parts and supplies only, not labor, the labor's paid for. Mountain climbing is optional, and is different from a walk in the New Hampshire woods.