who should pay for the rescue of rich folk who vacation in dangerous, out of the way places?

[dead0man]

Since this place is full of rich people who want the govt to pay for stuff, it should be ....interesting?  Or not.


rich people=anyone can afford to get to an out of the way place that they might need to be rescued from.  Yes, I understand you don't have to be properly rich to get lost in the deep woods, but for the purpose of this poll, they are.  If you want to make exceptions for the rare actual poor person that needs a rescuing, that's fine.

[Santander]

You do realize there are insurance policies for things like this, right? Or you have government policies like the NPS policy to not generally bill people for rescues in national parks, and the cost of rescues is built into their user fees and government funding.

When it comes to the cost of government agencies that have statutory search and rescue responsibilities (e.g., the Coast Guard), people should not be sent bills for rescue efforts unless maybe they were conducting intentionally reckless activities like kayaking from California to Hawaii, which some idiot actually tried.

[Benjamin Frank]

You do realize there are insurance policies for things like this, right? Or you have government policies like the NPS policy to not generally bill people for rescues in national parks, and the cost of rescues is built into their user fees and government funding.

When it comes to the cost of government agencies that have statutory search and rescue responsibilities (e.g., the Coast Guard), people should not be sent bills for rescue efforts unless maybe they were conducting intentionally reckless activities like kayaking from California to Hawaii, which some idiot actually tried.

So, you're saying the Gilligan's Island episode where the guy went on a surfboard from the island to Hawaii wasn't true??

[Ferguson97]

I don't think being stupid means that you should be doomed to die if there is a chance that you can be rescued.

[dead0man]

I don't think being stupid means that you should be doomed to die if there is a chance that you can be rescued.

I'm not asking if people should be rescued or not, I'm just asking if they should get the bill afterwords...or not.

[Benjamin Frank]

1.The problem with making people pay the bill themselves is that discourages them from seeking help and encourages them to try to rescue themselves instead. This can lead to them getting into even more dangerous situations as well as waste valuable time.

2.Rich folks pay taxes as well and they deserve to receive the same basic services that everybody else receives. If search and rescue were more of a burden on the budget than it is, there would likely be mandatory insurance for these things in all cases.

So, for instance, before a person could go hiking, the park ranger would check to make sure that all hikers have proper insurance.

[Ferguson97]

I don't think being stupid means that you should be doomed to die if there is a chance that you can be rescued.

I'm not asking if people should be rescued or not, I'm just asking if they should get the bill afterwords...or not.

Alright, I don't think they should have to foot the bill either.

Setting aside the moral implications of such an idea... what's the cutoff? When do a person's actions become sufficiently foolish/risky that they'd have to foot the bill for their rescue? Who decides?

[HisGrace]

Write in: leave them there

[Aurelius2]

The state. If you want a better return on your taxes you should simply drop the fearful, sheltered longhouse mentality and develop a stronger sense of adventure. You've never really lived if you haven't been in a situation where if something goes wrong a medivac is the only way you're getting out alive. If you can't change the system, become the system.

You think of the clown show submarine, I think of John Franklin and Ernest Shackleton.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly: there have been jurisdictions where people who were responsible for their getting lost (going to out of bound areas while hiking) where legislated to pay for their own rescue, and what's happened is that some of the people in that situation hid from rescuers in order to not pay.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The state. If you want a better return on your taxes you should simply drop the fearful, sheltered longhouse mentality and develop a stronger sense of adventure. You've never really lived if you haven't been in a situation where if something goes wrong a medivac is the only way you're getting out alive. If you can't change the system, become the system.

You think of the clown show submarine, I think of John Franklin and Ernest Shackleton.

This makes me wonder what kind of terrifying situations you have been in.

[MarkD]

Whoever pays to rescue the other economic classes should also pay to rescue "the rich" (whoever they are).

[John Dule]

I don't think being stupid means that you should be doomed to die if there is a chance that you can be rescued.

I'm not asking if people should be rescued or not, I'm just asking if they should get the bill afterwords...or not.

Alright, I don't think they should have to foot the bill either.

Setting aside the moral implications of such an idea... what's the cutoff? When do a person's actions become sufficiently foolish/risky that they'd have to foot the bill for their rescue? Who decides?

I think the more important issue is how this would disincentivize people to seek help in emergency situations. All emergency services should be free of charge to the user.

[gerritcole]

spending on emergency services is such a drop in the bucket compared to bigger ticket items in the budget, it's probably equivalent to a few HIMARS or patriot systems

[Ferguson97]

I don't think being stupid means that you should be doomed to die if there is a chance that you can be rescued.

I'm not asking if people should be rescued or not, I'm just asking if they should get the bill afterwords...or not.

Alright, I don't think they should have to foot the bill either.

Setting aside the moral implications of such an idea... what's the cutoff? When do a person's actions become sufficiently foolish/risky that they'd have to foot the bill for their rescue? Who decides?

I think the more important issue is how this would disincentivize people to seek help in emergency situations. All emergency services should be free of charge to the user.

That too.

[Samof94]

You do realize there are insurance policies for things like this, right? Or you have government policies like the NPS policy to not generally bill people for rescues in national parks, and the cost of rescues is built into their user fees and government funding.

When it comes to the cost of government agencies that have statutory search and rescue responsibilities (e.g., the Coast Guard), people should not be sent bills for rescue efforts unless maybe they were conducting intentionally reckless activities like kayaking from California to Hawaii, which some idiot actually tried.

So, you're saying the Gilligan's Island episode where the guy went on a surfboard from the island to Hawaii wasn't true??

Or the island from Lost.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This reminds me of the 4chan user who vacationed in Afghanistan just before the Taliban took over, having to be rescued by the British government, trying to become an online celebrity, immediately flying back to Afghanistan, doing some propaganda vids for them and then immediately disappearing off the face of the earth.