Who should pay for the cost of rescues?

Tell me where the line is.

You know, what separates the rescue efforts between those rich "adventurers" and you if you drive your car into a canyon? What if the engine in your plane fails in an uninhabited area? Maybe you're out fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and your boat starts taking on water?

What about when a airliner crashes? Do you really want the airline deciding which rescue resources are expended based on how much it's going to cost them?
 
I refused to read past the title of the article. just another opportunity to blame the rich. what about the 2 kids in fla that got lost at sea when they took a row boat fishing? or the old man that got lost on a hiking trip? or the hundreds of other people that have absolutely nothing to do with being rich or not. fk that propaganda rhetoric bs.
 
Rescue costs should be apportioned between those who were rescued and the public resources who rescued them based on a sliding scale. The more idiotic the activity that prompted the rescue, the more the rescued parties pay.

I volunteer to allocate costs, based on reports I read on the internet. :)
 
I am the first to say if it’s experimental rich guy stuff then they need to pay…I know Branson followed through by making a large donation to VISAR out of the BVI’s and allowed them to upgrade the Spirit of Virgin Gorda..I am an associate member donating on occasion a few bucks a year. Also in my case I sort of expect the Coast Guard or normal Mariner assistance from passing vessels without a bill…even stupid people who are often at sea and clueless. I currently a couple of hundred miles off the Florida coast having left Nassau yesterday and heading to Newport , RI in a 62 foot Lagoon helping a friend reposition his boat…so it hits close to home. FYI Starlink Marine works really well but it’s expensive…
 
lemme axe this question.....who pays for the flyovers at trent palmers friends house sporting events? seriously, I don't feel like googling it.
 
Salty said:
Serious question. Does it really cost that much to rescue someone? Don’t we need the assets available and regular training anyway? Isn’t the actual rescue the cheap part?
Click to expand...
These are my thoughts as well. Money spent on training exercises dwarfs this. I would be willing to bet it's a zero sum game when it's all said and done.
 
eman1200 said:
I refused to read past the title of the article. just another opportunity to blame the rich. what about the 2 kids in fla that got lost at sea when they took a row boat fishing? or the old man that got lost on a hiking trip? or the hundreds of other people that have absolutely nothing to do with being rich or not. fk that propaganda rhetoric bs.
Click to expand...
I don't blame the rich. I blame the commercial operators who profit by making all these costs external. Would this operation have even occurred if the company had to post a bond large enough for several navies to engage in a multi-day search operation and rescue from the bottom of the ocean? This time it probably wasn't even that expensive since it was really just about getting the right assets to the right place to confirm what the Navy knew happened.
 
eman1200 said:
lemme axe this question.....who pays for the flyovers at trent palmers friends house sporting events? seriously, I don't feel like googling it.
Click to expand...
The organizers sometimes pay a small fee, but the military usually chalks it up to training exercises.

Nascar has been using RV formation teams lately which I think is kinda cool.
 
Lindberg said:
I don't blame the rich. I blame the commercial operators who profit by making all these costs external. Would this operation have even occurred if the company had to post a bond large enough for several navies to engage in a multi-day search operation and rescue from the bottom of the ocean? This time it probably wasn't even that expensive since it was really just about getting the right assets to the right place to confirm what the Navy knew happened.
Click to expand...
Would any of this have happened if the coast guard forced a commercial submarine to be inspected and tested like they do fishing vessels?
 
Racerx said:
Would any of this have happened if the coast guard forced a commercial submarine to be inspected and tested like they do fishing vessels?
Click to expand...
It was never operated in us waters, so probably yeah.
 
Lindberg said:
I don't blame the rich. I blame the commercial operators who profit by making all these costs external. Would this operation have even occurred if the company had to post a bond large enough for several navies to engage in a multi-day search operation and rescue from the bottom of the ocean? This time it probably wasn't even that expensive since it was really just about getting the right assets to the right place to confirm what the Navy knew happened.
Click to expand...

Yeuuppp - I feel that much of what was done was to confirm something they already knew, and needed confirmation for the families. I am sure knowing they have the means to pay it, they'll get a bill.
 
If we didn't have to spend money to deal with the consequences of people doing stupid things, we not only mostly wouldn't need the coast guard, we mostly wouldn't need the navy. If it makes anyone feel better, most of the stupid is caused by people that don't have much money...but I agree that rich people do tend to create larger problems with their stupidity.

This rescue attempt? I bet you'd need to go at least six digits down to even see it in the US budget, if that. Probably the biggest actual impact is a bunch of sailors had their weekend plans screwed up, but if they're Navy or Coast Guard they're probably used to it, and glad to help.
 
The government should protect its citizens. This is a public good, like being rescued after an arrest in a hostile foreign country, or lighthouses.


eman1200 said:
lemme axe this question.....who pays for the flyovers at trent palmers friends house sporting events? seriously, I don't feel like googling it.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the military pays some sort of fee to the sporting event organizers as well. Then again, it’s probably a marketing expense line item.
 
The government and its people benefit from many risks taken, think about the first flight. So the government should help.

There’s a lot of monies earned by the government for these industries too. When you earn some, you have costs too.
 
What could be said about rescuing “wealthy adventurers” that can’t be said about saving anyone in a burning building?
 
There has been considerable similar discussion on some hiking forums. In many cases you'll be billed for rescue expenses if it is determined that your own negligence caused you to need rescue. New Hampshire sells a "hike safe" card that covers the expenses if you need rescue.
 
The article was a study in stupidity, but this question has been raised probably since the beginning of time. I don't really see the point of the question. Rich or not, stupid or not, at the end of the day, they're all humans. Most rescue organizations are based on the moral compunction to save another human's life. Being rich and stupid doesn't remove the human part from the equation, and outlawing their rescue unless they pay a fine is basically saying that they are less human because they are rich and stupid.

My other thought was - if we did enact fines for rescues caused by idiotic actions, who would get to decide what's idiotic? I can think of a lot of people off the top of my head that think that any time a person goes up in a GA plane, they are taking idiotic risks; or when a person goes motorcycling, or diving, or driving a sports car, or going to a track night, or going camping...and that's just a short list. And who gets to decide whether someone is rich or not? To some people, my life would be the height of luxury. To others, barely above the poverty line. Whether someone is rich or not is also very subjective.

I personally think that a good-sized donation to the organization that rescued you would be in good taste, but making it a requirement opens quite a few cans of worms that I would not want to see opened.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
What could be said about rescuing “wealthy adventurers” that can’t be said about saving anyone in a burning building?
Click to expand...

I doubt people in a burning building chose to put themselves at risk.

edit: except, of course, for the firefighters entering the building.
 
Last edited:
Let's organize a protest to get legislation saying the citizens of Chaz, later known as the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (Chop), fund rescues for all rich entrepreneurial explorer dudes.

My work is done here. Have a good day.
 
TCABM said:
Honestly, it’s not a great read; it’s click bait… just like your post.
Click to expand...
You remind me of my teenage son. He'll find any excuse not to read other's opinions on any subject. If he does read a whole paragraph, he'll be dismissive about it too.

Are you a teenager?

If not, sorry to wake you up from your anesthesia.
 
Himayeti said:
You remind me of my teenage son. He'll find any excuse not to read other's opinions on any subject. If he does read a whole paragraph, he'll be dismissive about it too.

Are you a teenager?

If not, sorry to wake you up from your anesthesia.
Click to expand...

Funny. Retired .mil officer and currently an HR consultant for an F100 financial services firm. Have done both volunteer and professional SAR and CSAR. Guess you didn’t get the opinion you were expecting, huh?

You threw out an article without any of your own opinion and asked for members here to share their thoughts, expecting controversy.

Q: Do you value human life?
 
TCABM said:
Funny. Retired .mil officer and currently an HR consultant for an F100 financial services firm. Have done both volunteer and professional SAR and CSAR. Guess you didn’t get the opinion you were expecting, huh?

You threw out an article without any of your own opinion and asked for members here to share their thoughts, expecting controversy.

Q: Do you value human life?
Click to expand...

That's quite the contradiction.

An ex-military person asking me if I value human life. Hmm... Note that you use the word human too, implying you care little about other species.

I guess I do value life. I don't own a gun, if that's what you mean.

Finally, as to having an opinion: Scientists are taught specifically to never have opinions. We observe, gather data, and then come up with a hypothesis. We cheer when somebody comes up with a better one too.

Cheers.
 
Himayeti said:
That's quite the contradiction.

An ex-military person asking me if I value human life. Hmm... Note that you use the word human too, implying you care little about other species.

I guess I do value life. I don't own a gun, if that's what you mean.

Finally, as to having an opinion: Scientists are taught specifically to never have opinions. We observe, gather data, and then come up with a hypothesis. We cheer when somebody comes up with a better one too.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
People die every day. Some in creative ways. I don’t get too worked up about it.
And what’s with the gun comment? What the heck does that have to do with this topic?
I also perceive a slam against the military. Where are you going with that?. my father was a World War II combat vet. Came back home and became a teacher and touched the lives of hundreds of children throughout his career. My daughter is going to med school on a navy scholarship and part times as an EMT. Dealt with things that would make most people have nightmares. I think she cares about human life but she’s going to be in the military. My wife was a nurse for 35 years she was in the Navy too.

perhaps you want to clarify and/or rephrase. I would not want to miss understand your intent.
 
Last edited:
Himayeti said:
That's quite the contradiction.

An ex-military person asking me if I value human life. Hmm... Note that you use the word human too, implying you care little about other species.

I guess I do value life. I don't own a gun, if that's what you mean.

Finally, as to having an opinion: Scientists are taught specifically to never have opinions. We observe, gather data, and then come up with a hypothesis. We cheer when somebody comes up with a better one too.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Yes, but do you have anything useful to contribute? Or is your sole purpose to outrage?

troll
 
I mean, SAR teams do an extensive amount of training.. it's not like they're just sitting in a room all day waiting for an emergency. They're out there every day constantly training and preparing. Who pays for that? Rhetorical. When a 'real' emergency happens I see it as a great opportunity to do real world training

I don't get worked up over 'who's going to pay for this?!?!?' - we are dummy. The same people that pay for their training. And it strikes me as a little 'odd' or tasteless frankly. Who cares about rich, or poor someone is. When a hiker gets lost in the Sierras SAR teams take each and every event very seriously. Does a rich person maybe get more media attention, sure if they're a celebrity, but that doesn't change the effort SAR puts in.



Sort of off topic (but maybe on?) this ship spent some time in San Diego recently, Victor built an incredible deep sea vehicle which has done trips to Titanic, and has been multiple times to the deepest part of each ocean (which was the initial goal)

edited - typo of ' **** ' to 'ship' :oops:

Really neat to see something competently built:
 
Himayeti said:
That's quite the contradiction.

An ex-military person asking me if I value human life. Hmm... Note that you use the word human too, implying you care little about other species.

I guess I do value life. I don't own a gun, if that's what you mean.

Finally, as to having an opinion: Scientists are taught specifically to never have opinions. We observe, gather data, and then come up with a hypothesis. We cheer when somebody comes up with a better one too.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, all military or ex-military personnel don't value human life, nor does anyone who owns a gun. Did I read that correctly?

And I don't think we were talking about rich Dobermans going out on a questionable adventure and requiring rescue, so it would make sense to specify humans. It doesn't imply "little care" about other species.
 
Bob Noel said:
chose to put themselves at risk
Click to expand...
I've heard this a couple times about the sub 'these rich idiots got on a piece of crap, F* 'em!'

Not to defend the ubiquitous 'rich' but these folks likely had no idea just how much risk they were getting into. There are two YouTubers who rode on that same sub, one actually made it to the Titanic. Maybe it's a fallacy of sorts, but they were led to believe the operation was safe. You spend a ton of money, get on a big ship, are met with an eccentric 'Musk-type' persona, I mean, it's not unreasonable for them to think "no one here wants to die, I spent a lot of money, this will probably work out" - some folks listened to their spidey sense and chose not to go. But if you're not an engineer, not a diver, not [insert] you'll have no idea what you're getting yourself into, what level of risk is normal and what is not
 
Let's crib from how we do medicine in this country. Bill EVERYONE, even the idiots, and let the ones who come up short when faced with a 7-figure rescue cost file bankruptcy.

Then we can create a massive industry dedicated to rescue insurance. Then we can mandate coverage. Then rescues will cost 9 figures. Everyone wins. :D
 
eman1200 said:
I refused to read past the title of the article. just another opportunity to blame the rich. what about the 2 kids in fla that got lost at sea when they took a row boat fishing? or the old man that got lost on a hiking trip? or the hundreds of other people that have absolutely nothing to do with being rich or not. fk that propaganda rhetoric bs.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh... wait.
 
I think we resolved this far back in history - if we can, we attempt a rescue and/or search. Social and economic status not considered. We (society) stick our nose into personal decisions all the time - like mandatory wear of motorcycle helmets; one argument is "we" have to shoulder much of the cost for horrible head injuries - yeah, we do, because we won't let a cyclist sign a waiver and carry a "do not treat" card. "We" want to make the call, "we" have to pay the cost. Ill prepared, drunk, badly trained, and just plain stupid people fill the ranks of the boating community. USCG still tries to save them. Or find the bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top