Should They Pay for Their Rescue?

[Stacerita]

They shouldn't have to pay for an accident. If they broke no laws or anything, no. I would consider making some one pay if they broke laws, tresspass or something along those lines. Not just for having bad luck.

 

[luvsmickeymouse]

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 agree!

 

[marlynnp]

They acted irresponsibly and irresponsible actions have consequences.

It comes to a mere $150 per person and yes I believe they should each pay.

 

[freckles and boo]

They shouldn't have to pay for an accident. If they broke no laws or anything, no. I would consider making some one pay if they broke laws, tresspass or something along those lines. Not just for having bad luck.

Using poor judgment isn't the same thing as having bad luck. They knowingly crossed over cracked ice on a 50 degree day. They took unreasonable risks and more than one of them probably knew it was stupid but the herd mentality prevailed.

 

[disney1990]

134 fishermen were stranded on an ice flow that broke away from land. One person, who fell into the frigid water died of a heart attack. The cost of the rescue is estimated to be $20,000. Some are calling for the fishermen to pay for the cost of their rescue. They broke no laws, they weren't trespassing, and they happened to have 'bad luck'. Most accidents are 'bad luck'. Should they have to pay for their resue. The sheriff said that it is unlikely that this group will be charged but going forward, there may be a change in that policy. What are your thoughts? Don't we have police, fire, rescue and the coast guard just for this purpose? Isn't this in part, where are tax dollars go? If every time someone had to pay government for their rescue, they may hesitate to call for help until it is too late. Paying for one's rescue, particularly when no laws were broken is ridiculous.

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/02/08/news/mj585157.txt

I can't see where they did anything to cause what happened. No they should not have to pay for their rescue. There are a lot irresponsible people that cause this kind of thing to happen -- but NOT this time.

 

[CajunDixie]

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.

In some places there is a difference in "rescue" and ambulance transport. If my ambulance had responded to the scene in the OP and we had contact with patients then they would have received a bill. If only the fire department had responded they would not have received a bill.

Now ambulance service is my specialty. When you had the seizure you were not mentally capable of making a decision so an ambulance was called in your best interest. This is called implied consent. And by law we can transport you w/o your consent. When you fell and broke your back IF you were conscious and alert then you could have legally (but stupidly ) refused all care. Once we are dispatched someone is going to get a bill. Now I can't file with your insurance company w/o your permission but if you don't give me your permission to file it then you have 90 days to pay the bill or make other arrangements. There are certain conditions we can call the police and have you declared not mentally capable of making a decision about transport.

They shouldn't have to pay for an accident. If they broke no laws or anything, no. I would consider making some one pay if they broke laws, tresspass or something along those lines. Not just for having bad luck.

It wasn't bad luck. They knowingly crossed open water to get to where they were going.

I can't see where they did anything to cause what happened. No they should not have to pay for their rescue. There are a lot irresponsible people that cause this kind of thing to happen -- but NOT this time.

They crossed open water! They knew the ice they were on was not connected to the ice along the shore. Ice floats!!! Things that float move!!! They were irresponsible in going onto the ice that had broken off from the ice along the shore.

Throw an ice cube in a bowl...does it stay on the edge of the bowl or does it move? Does a breeze make it move? Put weight on the ice, does it move?

 

[perdidobay]

In southern Colorado where we like to vacation, there is a fee you can pay when you go into Wilderness areas that covers the expense if you need to be rescued.

If you choose not to pay the fee and need to be rescued, you foot the bill.

I think that's fair. Esp. in an area where tourists do stupid things on a daily basis - why should the locals have to pay huge taxes to cover someone from Nebraska's foolishness?

~Not picking on Nebraskans, just an example~

 

[TheZue]

I think there should be some nominal fee for all rescues like this. These guys basically went out and built a bridge to what basically amounts to an uncontrollable ice boat first thing in the morning when it's going to do nothing but melt. There should be some fee...it's just so damn stupid. It wasn't a small risk, it was an almost certain bad ending.

The problem I see with charging people is you have to decide who was stupid and who was unlucky if you are going to charge them the full amount. But if it's a smaller fee evenly applied maybe people will be more careful.

And as for animals getting rescued, they're animals...they don't know better. And they sure aren't going to require helicopters to come get them...or build a bridge of stupidity to certain danger. On a funny note in December there was an incident here where people reported that some ducks were frozen in the ice, everyone got all upset and sent rescuers to go get them out, when they got close they all flew away

 

[Cool-Beans]

Okay, I've never been a fan of going out on the ice. I don't let the kids do it and made DH promise me he wouldn't. I think that it is stupid - no matter how safe it looks, how many others have done it, blah, blah, blah...it's just a dumb, dumb thing to do.

I heard about this and thought, "Morons."

But that is what we pay the stupid Coast Guard and all those guys for. To flippin help us. If they don't want to do that, then they should all quit and save us the money. I have a friend who works for the Coast Guard. He spends most of his work time with nothing at all to do. They play cards, video games, etc. It won't kill them to go out and do some flippin work, even if they grumble about it.

No, I don't think these these guys should have to pay for their rescue, even if they were morons. We, the people, already paid for it.

 

[Charade]

I got an idea!!!

Rescue insurance!!!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I got an idea!!!

Rescue insurance!!!

They sell it for cruise evacuations...

 

[Charade]

They sell it for cruise evacuations...

Another million dollar idea down the crapper.

 

[FSUDisneyGirl]

LOL some of these responses are cracking me up! I did see on the news this morning that the cost of some of the helicopters is $4000 an hour, the guy in charge looked pretty pissed...probably because one of the men who was out on the ice admitted that they pretty much all knew it was probably unsafe, and wanted to go out anyway. i have to say it was pretty dumb....i don't know if they should have to pay...but it's definitely a "here's your sign" moment...

 

[perla75]

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.

I think you have an interesting point here-if the fisherman should get charged, why not the people from NOLA who chose to ride out the storm?? I'm not referring to those who couldn't afford to leave. Just the ones who chose to stay. Didn't they put rescue workers' lives at risk as well? They were aware of the danger, just like these fisherman were.

 

[kbeverina]

I don't think they should be charged. This is what we pay emergency services for and the last thing we need is to give the government more authority to make subjective decisions.

But, really, how would they go about it anyway? Did they take names and contact information from everyone they rescued? How would they find them all to charge them?

 

[CPT Tripss]

I got an idea!!!

Rescue insurance!!!

Not only do they sell it for cruise evacs, but they sell it for boaters who need a tow . . . towing once was provided by the Coast Guard and the CG Aux. as a matter of routine. Now, The Coast Guard will only respond if there is imminent threat to life or property, or if there are no towing firms in the area.

As far as paying for the rescue goes . . . they should have paid. Heck many of the "rescued" paid to have their shanties and snow machines recovered.

 

[cjb71870]

Of so many rescues I've seen on TV, why the question on this one?

 

[Carly_Roach]

Because this was not an "accident" or "freak of nature". This was a 50 degree day with ice that had already melted to the point of needing alternative means of getting onto it.

This wasn't a natural disaster (unlike NOLA). This was a lake that was covered by ice and this situation happens each and every year. These men didn't HAVE to be there for work, to survive, to protect their property or because they didn't have alternative means of escaping the ice (unlike NOLA).

These men chose to walk out onto a frozen lake (that was melting by the hour on a warm day) for recreational purposes only.

I say they should have to pay for services rendered to get their silly selves out of the jam that they got themselves into. With layoffs and downsizing, the income taxes our state and local governments get each year are fewer and fewer. Especially in a rust-belt states like Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. These taxes should go toward a real emergency, not rescuing a bunch of fishermen who had no business being out there in the first place.

 

[freckles and boo]

I got an idea!!!

Rescue insurance!!!

This is what I referred to earlier. There should be a specific license for ice fishing and included in that would be a premium for rescue. If you decline, you pay the full price for your rescue.

 

[Charade]

This is what I referred to earlier. There should be a specific license for ice fishing and included in that would be a premium for rescue. If you decline, you pay the full price for your rescue.

Yeah, but I was looking for a "cottage" industry to make a killing. Oh well...