Yeah, that was it I guess … though no trees next to Lake of the Clouds, obviously…
Funny I thought the OP’s question was:
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.
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.
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
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
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?
You’re saying rescue is a business expense?
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.
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
Thinking about the different examples offered, of New Hampshire, and Mount Ranier, and the ocean, I see various things:
-
Having to pay for part or all of the costs of a rescue is not uncommon.
-
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”.
-
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.