Should They Pay for Their Rescue?

[DawnCt1]

If we pay separately for services that we use, the overall tax rate can be lower. We use this concept with roads. We tax people based on their driving (indirectly via a gas tax) to pay for the roads that they use. We could just as easily drop the gasoline tax and raise the money from an income tax. Using a gas tax apportions ties the costs more closely to the benefits.

The same principal could apply here. If a reasonable means can be achieved to tie the cost of rescuing people from bad risks, we could put the costs on the risk takers. That would presumably cause people to more carefully assessing risks before taking them. It also seems fairer.

I disagree. We all pay for schools, and yet, some people have no children. The state of Oregon would like its citizens to pay for roads and have entertained the idea of tracking the mileage on their cars and billing them accordingly. How much government intervention do we really want in our lives. I pay taxes to be rescued every year. So far I haven't needed a rescue. The tax payer takes a risk paying for something they may not need. The city takes the risk collecting funds and capitalizing on a possibility that may not happen. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose.

 

[Colleen27]

Absolutely yes they should. There's no defending the thought process of going ice fishing on a 50 degree day as the ice melts around you, particularly when the NWS is issuing warnings about unstable ice! I kind of wonder at the cost being cited, though, because I've seen much higher numbers attached to similar rescues in my area and there's never been one on this scale on our little lake. Around here, it's just a lone idiot or two.

Something I've not seen mentioned is the costs beyond the immediate rescue. That's the more costly aspect here - often these fools take their snowmobiles, ATV, or even pickup trucks onto the ice and therefore into the water with them. So it is not the rescuing of the people, but rather rescuing their equipment to prevent the ecological damage of oil, gas, antifreeze, etc spilling into the lake and the vehicle being left to pollute indefinitely that gets expensive.

 

[Colleen27]

Well, apparently they plan to make a law for the future. Does that mean that the town/county/state will decide if the ice is safe before they officially "open it" to fishermen? Does that mean that if they decree it is safe and someone is injured/stranded, etc. that they will make the municipality subject to law suits?

Unfortunately, that's the alternative to charging the rescuees. If communities have no way of recouping rescue costs and cannot absorb those costs, either they can pass the bill along to the idiots who incurred the cost or they can close the ice to fishermen entirely. Our county weighed just that issue before passing a measure that bills people in need of rescue due to their own "recklessness".

 

[CajunDixie]

Well, apparently they plan to make a law for the future. Does that mean that the town/county/state will decide if the ice is safe before they officially "open it" to fishermen? Does that mean that if they decree it is safe and someone is injured/stranded, etc. that they will make the municipality subject to law suits?
Does it mean that it will NEVER be opened because we, as Americans can only engage in activities that are absolutely safe and without risk?

I think we have seen the results of that with watered down playgrounds and so many limitations that obesity is a problem in children. More government nanny-ism. Why pay taxes if you have to pay for services as well?

Why shouldn't they post signs if they feel the ice isn't safe? They close the beaches when it's not safe to swim.
I read one statement that said the experienced, local fishermen weren't out there....it was the ignorant, inexperienced out of towner fishermen that were on the ice. Common sense says you don't build a bridge over the open water, the ice had already broken off and was separating when they went out there.

I think they should have to share the expense of their rescue. You may "pay" to be rescued but as an EMT I don't get paid enough to risk my life because some idiot decided fishing was more important than living. Maybe you should look into how little govenrment money is provided to police, fire and ambulance services before you say you "pay" to be rescued. Once we're out of budgeted money thats it we're done so yes we get angry when something so stupid costs us a whole months payroll!! I can tell you if that happened here and my ambulance was called in, every patient we had contact with would get a bill. And from experience from having snowmobilers that have gone through the ice these people would most likely gladly pay our bill because they are happy that we have saved their lives. Put yourself in their place, would you be glad those agencies had the equipment to rescue you, be glad they saved your life and would you really be that angry if you were billed your share which would be $166.66 (150 people $25,000)? Isn't them saving your LIFE worth $166.66?

Obesity in children can't be blamed on lack of playgrounds! I grew up in the middle of no where. But I got plenty of exercise. Get the kids outside and away from computers, video games, and television.

 

[ntsammy5]

Is there a point which a rescue becomes economically or physically too expensive to pursue? If the cost was in the millions to rescue them or if the risk to the rescuers was so great that some of them might have died would the rescue have been made? Happens in mine disasters sometimes. There has to be a limit..... I'm not sure what it is.

This was not an accident. Each and every one of these men knew that there was a risk involved in going out on the ice - they just ignored that risk. The extra cost of the rescue should be borne by the people who were rescued. There is no reasonable expectation that helicopters would be available for a rescue, so they should pay for those. Beyond that let the courts handle it. If the courts can determine a presidential election they can certainly determine who's liable for what in this case.

 

[MM27]

Thats stupid.

I pay a police fee every month because I live within city limits.

I thought that was the point of the fee that I paid??

you pay for your local police, but not for the search and rescue helicopters or other additional resources that have to be brought in for such emergencies. When people are lost on some of the big mountains in the US, it can be upwards of $200,000 to send out rescue parties.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Why shouldn't they post signs if they feel the ice isn't safe? They close the beaches when it's not safe to swim.
I read one statement that said the experienced, local fishermen weren't out there....it was the ignorant, inexperienced out of towner fishermen that were on the ice. Common sense says you don't build a bridge over the open water, the ice had already broken off and was separating when they went out there. ..

Believe it or not, it is not the government's responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. I believe that, if there was no history of charging for a rescue in this area, these men should not be expected to pay. However, I would not protest if local or state governments should pass ordinances making people who take these risks pay for their own rescue.

 

[DawnCt1]

Over the last month or so I have seen television coverage of a dog rescued from falling in an ice covered lake. A moose was rescued under similar circumstances. Horses as well. Helicopters have been called in. Sewers have been dug up to save kittens. Who do will bill in those circumstances? If these men were trespassing and had broken laws, then bill them. But they violated no laws except the laws of common sense.

 

[Sandy321]

I am not an ice fisherman,nor do I know an ice fisherman.

I refuse to stand in judgement of something I now so little about. It was my understanding that they did pay the hovercrafters to rescue their snowmobiles (FOX news reported) but again the issue was the ice - on a Great Lake? I think that there are fissures that often are planked over - they did not cross knowingly that the ice would break - the ice was 2 feet deep -

but if you are in a Great Lake - I cant imagine it freezing over safe enough to allow for ice fishing - I grew up by Lake Michigan - lots of ice fishing on lakes - but not on Lake Michigan where I grew up - it just never froze over...

so its apples to oranges, and there is no way that I stand in judgement. I would say that if they broke a law or protocal, then maybe - but from the newscast I watched, and listened to - it was a pure accident.

 

[Lanshark]

Don't charge them for the rescue. Ticket them for being morons

 

[KNJ Mom]

Carrying this thought further, should we then go back and charge the people from New Orleans and Galveston that needed rescuing after the hurricanes. They did have advance knowledge that the storms were coming and either chose to ride them out or were unable to leave and who would decide between stupidity and an inability to leave, thereby deciding who should be charged. I think it would open a Pandora's Box of issues if this was instituted. Taken further would municipalities then have the choice of who can afford rescuing. ie 2 people in the same situation but one able to pay and the other not, the powers that be would then be putting a price on the worthiness of each life. Not something I could condone.

 

[Anne MN]

What about the smaller communities where all they have is a volunteer fire dept? that is who would be the first to be sent out. I know that some of the fire depts. practice for water and ice rescues.

In the area I use to live in, all the houses had well's and septic, no fire hydrants for fire trucks to hook up to. I believe that if you lived outside the city limits and you had a fire, you were charged for water that they had to truck in.
As for as ice houses and other things falling thru the ice, I know that the owner is required to remove it from the body of water. Very expensive recovery fee! and most of the time, that item is no longer useable, and i think that insurance will not cover it, or the cost to recover it!

 

[maymom96]

As some one who lives in Michigan, lives on a lake and lives in a county that has a lake within a 15 minutes drive in any location, I say charge them for being rescued. As soon as it gets cold in the early winter to when the ice starts to melt, people are out on the ice. It's like the thrill of getting a fish is worth more than their life.
DH is a fireman and ice rescues tick him off because they are so senseless. It puts him and other rescuers in danger of falling into the water. Last year, two men fell in the water by my house. The men were in the water but refused to be rescued because they wanted their equipment. Finally the police told them that if they didn't grab onto the rope (or what ever it was), they would be arrested. How insane is that?

 

[MM27]

Carrying this thought further, should we then go back and charge the people from New Orleans and Galveston that needed rescuing after the hurricanes. They did have advance knowledge that the storms were coming and either chose to ride them out or were unable to leave and who would decide between stupidity and an inability to leave, thereby deciding who should be charged. I think it would open a Pandora's Box of issues if this was instituted. Taken further would municipalities then have the choice of who can afford rescuing. ie 2 people in the same situation but one able to pay and the other not, the powers that be would then be putting a price on the worthiness of each life. Not something I could condone.

If there were mandatory evacuation and people chose to stay, then yes they should be fined. You're risking the lives of others because of your own selfishness.

If the government starts charging people because of their stupidity, maybe we can get out of our current financial situation

 

[aprilgail2]

"This just cost the taxpayers a ton of money," Ottawa County, Ohio, Sheriff Bob Bratton said. "We lost a life out there today. ... I'm sorry a man lost his life out there today. These people should have known better."

Bratton said those rescued should never have been on Lake Erie in the first place because weather conditions made it risky, and "if there was a section in the code about common sense, we would have had 150 arrests out there today." This was wrong. These people endangered the life of volunteer firemen, [and] the United States Coast Guard," Bratton said, estimating the cost of the sheriff's office response at $25,000. "I'm sure that's going to climb."
Bratton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the fishermen displayed poor judgment in building a makeshift bridge to get from one section of the ice to the other.

"I have no problem with people ice fishing, but these idiots should realize that when you see open water, you should not build a bridge and cross it," he said. "It's a shame you can't arrest people for stupidity."


25,000 of taxpayers money blown on people just being stupid.

 

[ajk912]

You guys don't get charged for rescues?

There have been a few times that an ambulance has been called on our behalf over the years, and I have always got a bill. Once, when I fell through my attic and broke my back, and the other time when I had a seizure in Gap.

I agree that it should be a tax payer benefit, especially the seizure one..I didn't give permission to call an ambulance. Of course, I wasn't in any shape to leave, either.

But, if someone is being an idiot than I don't think the government should pay for it. Not sure how they make an idiot law though. OR, I can see people abusing it and calling for an ambulance to get a ride to the doctor because they are too tired to drive...

Maybe it is best that we just get billed for services.

 

[Missy1961]

When I was a kid we had new playground equipment but I haven't seen any equipment like it in years. There were "merry go rounds" that kids could push and jump on. Apparently kids fell off and their parents sued. I haven't seen monkey bars in years, in which you could climb to the top and hang up side down. Schools are limiting recess in favor of more academics, which I think is counter productive.

Off topic, but here (Long Island, NY) we have wonderful parks. I live behind a school, they have a fantastic play area. No crazy merry-go-round--those things are horrible, but this area has monkey bars galore. Kids can climb, hang from the bars, go hand over hand, etc. And if they fall, there are rubberized surfaces all around. My nieces would play there for hours. I know they have a wonderful park with swings, etc. close by to their house.

 

[ntsammy5]

I rethought this - they souldn't have to pay for the rescue, but they should be put right back on the ice!

 

[Missy1961]

Don't charge them for the rescue. Ticket them for being morons

 

[Magic Mom]

I don't know. I'm torn on this one.

It really bothers me when people do stupid crap and then put rescue workers in danger when they try to help them.

I'm torn too. On one hand, they aren't bad people, they just found themselves in a dangerous situation and needed help. On the other hand, they put themselves there in the first place, knowing there was at least a small amount of risk. The rescue cost thousands of dollars, and maybe they should be responsible for paying that since they chose to take the risk.

I'm glad I don't have to make the decision, because I would be no help at all.