We pay taxes to fund government services. So, in emergencies like this, the cost has already been paid and it shouldn't be double billed to the unfortunate people who needed rescue.

According to this article, the Coast Guard won't be pursuing any compensation. I don't imagine the other services will, either.

And Matt has a good point -- if the services are prepared to absorb incidents like this in their current operations and maintenance funding, there's probably not much point in a cost recovery effort. And even if you tried to go after some money, the accounting would be a real chore, and probably tied up in litigation for ages.

But there's more than money involved here. From the article I linked above, the 129th Rescue Wing (CAANG) responded with four pararescuemen, who "parachuted into the open ocean around 8 p.m. Thursday and reached the family’s sailboat, where they provided medical aid to the infant and helped turn the disabled boat around, according to Air National Guard officials." That's very dangerous, risky work, with the possibility of an airman dying in the effort to save the family.

If they're doing something perfectly legal and within the scope of what would generally be considered safe, I don't think they should be billed (at least not for the full costs of the rescue.) However, if they're doing something amazingly stupid that public warnings have been issued against (hiking in Afghanistan, touring North Korea, etc) or illegal (driving around flood barricades), charge them.

There are some things I will never bitch about my tax dollars being used for. Robots that rappel from jet-powered backpacks onto the surface of another planet is one of them. Saving sick babies and stranded families who had a turn of incredibly bad luck while doing something generally considered very safe is another.

Search and Rescue missions should not be subject to market forces.

In Switzerland we have a special insurance we can buy in case we need to get rescued in another country.

We pay taxes to fund government services.

Doesn't mean you should blindly use them. Parajumpers are meant to drop into a hot LZ and stabilize wounded service members and prep them for evacuation. Not for rescuing a wealthy family who got in over their heads.

I posted in another thread today this thought: Stupidity should be painful or fatal. We spend waaaaaaay to much money protecting people from the negative consequences of their choices.

As for the cost recovery, just seize their sailboat. I'm sure they'll pay to get it back. If not, put it up for auction and sell it to the highest bidder.

@NicoleK: "In Switzerland we have a special insurance we can buy in case we need to get rescued in another country."

I was wondering if something like that existed. I wonder if they have that in the United States.

I think the sailboat has descended into Davy Jones Locker, i.e. it sunk, since the boat was taking on water when the para-rescuers arrived. I would also think these people would happily trade their boat for their lives if they could. I have mixed feelings about what these people should pay. Also, they're extremely lucky that they were only 900 miles offshore and not halfway between here and New Zealand when all things went bad.

There is a difference between being out sailing and being 900 miles away from land with 2 children. What they did is beyond what should be considered responsible and therefore covered by normal coastguard activity.

I know of multiple families that have their kids in a 36' RV that travel around the country home schooling the kids.

So if they are parked in an RV park in Tennessee when a flash flood comes through and ruins the RV, are they being "extreme"? How about the RV breaking down in the middle of the Arizona desert where there are no cell towers in range and the kid gets sick, are they being "extreme"?

From the sounds of it they had a confluence of bad luck that could happen to anyone. If the kid wasn't sick but the boat broke, they could probably have found a private shipwright to come rescue them. If the kid was sick but the boat was fine they probably could have gotten to shore relatively quickly.

So in this case I think that it made national news distorts the view.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's someone who refuses to pay the price for what something truly costs. These rescue-ees derived an effectively infinite marginal value from the rescue, as they are now alive instead of dead. But they don't pay anything? That seems ridiculous and backwards.

Let's imagine that there is something like Rescue-At-Sea insurance that one could purchase. How much would it cost? I suspect that the price would be prohibitive to all but the very rich. That price would be a signal to the would-be sailors that they really can't afford their lifestyle. Instead, the Leviathan robs a little from everyone so that a few can live on a sailboat instead of a suburb.

Jim:

There are plenty of ways that your RVers could be insured or self-insured. Stuck in the desert without cell coverage? Satellite phone. Or just take a different route. Flash flood in Tennessee washes away the RV? Auto insurance. Or just don't park your RV on a flood plain.

This reminds me of the people who live in very rural areas and then complain about lack of access to quality medical care. You can't expect to pay almost zero property tax every year and have Mt. Sinai hospital just down the street. Similarly, you can't expect to take your kids 900 miles out to sea and expect a medical rescue. Even with a working engine and a cruising speed of 6 knots per hour, it's still more than five days out from medical care.

Isn't this just clucking, that somebody was having a good time doing something we can't and got hurt - then, didn't die so that we could feel better?

We have rescue services that work. There is no better way to train them then to send them out on the real deal, because theirs is a profession which cannot be simulated.

Radwaste:

Being a glazier is a profession that can't be simulated---but I don't break my windows (or yours, for that matter) to give them work.

Why are you so willing to bail them out of their awful decisions? I'm no more willing to subsidize their yachting than I am the flood insurance on their beach homes. People who don't pay for things from which they benefit are thieves and rent-seekers.

There are plenty of ways that your RVers could be insured or self-insured. Stuck in the desert without cell coverage? Satellite phone. Or just take a different route. Flash flood in Tennessee washes away the RV? Auto insurance. Or just don't park your RV on a flood plain. -- Tyler at April 9, 2014 3:31 PM

Would you say the same thing to someone who pulled in to a hotel in TN? Don't rent a room in a flood plain. What about a trucker trying to get deliveries from Surprise, AZ to Lake Havasu?

I take it you never had any bad days where two or three things just all went wrong. Like a flat tire and a rainy day? Or how about the gift you had shipped for your GF didn't arrive and a special date lined up?

As I said -- I think the family was just hit with multiple bad luck. It just made national news,

It does make sense to NOT charge for the rescue because when someone is in a tight situation the last thing needed is precious time lost while other members of the party debate whether to call for help or not all because they are afraid of the cost involved. THAT could cost lives.

On the other hand, sometimes folks put themselves into these dangerous situations and expect the rest of us to bail them out. That's not fair either.

Some sort of middle way is needed.

Some places, such as Denali National Park, I believe, charge extra for hikers who are going into the back country to help cover the costs of rescues. This way the cost is carried by ALL who are engaging in the risky behavior whether they need to be rescued or not.

I'm not too sure how we could "charge extra" to those who need to be rescued at sea. Extra docking fees for those planning on around-the-world sailing?

This could also lead to some "adventures" being only for the wealthy.

Oh wait, such around the world adventures were, at one time, only for the wealthy.

Wow, what a great country we live in! Anyone who saves up their money can go do stuff and get Uncle Sam to bail them out when they get in a life-threatening jam.

"I was wondering if something like that existed. I wonder if they have that in the United States."

When I lived in Colorado, rescued rock climbers, etc, would have to pay the bill for their rescue. That is, unless they had a fishing or hunting license. Part of the cost of the fishing license was for "rescue insurance".

I think the idea to make these sailboat folks pay for their rescue is ridiculous. We fund a Coast Guard just for this reason. A community funds a fire department for emergencies as well. Should we hit up a fire victim for the gas money to drive the fire trucks to his house? How about the water used to put out the flames?

Also, when the sensationalist news adds up the cost of these sorts of things, they add up the salaries of the rescuers, the fuel for the boats and planes, and every other little thing that they can. They do the same thing to calculate the "daily cost" of a military action. These people are getting a salary anyway, the boats and planes are sailing and flying around anyway.

We pay for these things in case we need them. Okay, we needed them. Fine. There is nothing criminal, selfish, reckless about sailing with your family. I'm glad they're okay and I'm glad that we had the resources and professional people available to save them.

"Wow, what a great country we live in! Anyone who saves up their money can go do stuff and get Uncle Sam to bail them out when they get in a life-threatening jam."

You're right, Charles. Nobody should ever leave their house and thoughtlessly incur a risk that the rest of us might, in some backward-logic way, have to "pay for".

Think of all the money we could save on traffic lights if nobody ever drove cars and selfishly expected the rest of us to pay for mitigating the risk they are taking.

Why are we, the taxpayer, paying for city parks anyway? Nobody told you to go and play frisbee. I don't do anything at all to make my life interesting and enjoyable, why should I have to pay for the recreation of others? If you're wealthy enough, you can get your own big ass yard to play frisbee in. Let the free market decide who gets to play frisbee.

Why am I paying that policeman who is getting that old lady's cat out of the tree. Nobody told the cat to climb up there. Hell, I don't even have a cat. Fuck the cat. Let it starve up there.

I take Maple Street to work. So why are my tax dollars going toward fixing the pot holes on Elm Street? I'll tell you why. It's because those fucking freeloading bastards on Elm Street are too poor to get them fixed without sponging off of me. Fuck them.

(this message brought to you by the Committee for a Libertarian Fantasyland)

"I think the idea to make these sailboat folks pay for their rescue is ridiculous. We fund a Coast Guard just for this reason. A community funds a fire department for emergencies as well. Should we hit up a fire victim for the gas money to drive the fire trucks to his house? How about the water used to put out the flames?"

If they were still within US territorial waters, I might agree. But they were 900 miles off of Mexico.

Say they were, instead of in international waters, stuck on a mountain top in Nepal?

Still think the US taxpayers should be footing the bill?

It is expensive to climb Mount Everest too, but if you get stuck up there in a storm,you usually die, for a reason.
Rescue is a risky business.

If they were still within US territorial waters, I might agree. But they were 900 miles off of Mexico. -- Isab at April 9, 2014 7:23 PM

What if it had been a freighter? What if it had been only 200 miles out? What about 50 miles out? What about a supertanker of oil?

TYLER, et al:
There are tens of thousands of Americans who are skilled – read that out loud, "skilled" – at these activities: yachting, hiking, spelunking, shooting, and that special burr in Amy's saddle, general aviation.
No one, including you, is talking about rescuing an idiot from his folly. The plain fact is that no one is safe, not even for a minute.
I suggest that punishing the adventurous with fines and fees when they get tapped by nature is merely more wealth envy – jealousy that we, the plebeians, could not get out and do that stuff.

This really is an argument about other people's money.

All the assets involved in this rescue are already funded for the fiscal year.

The ships would operate, the planes would fly, the PJs would train.

At the end of FY14, the Operations and Maintenance budgets for all the units involved will remain unchanged.

The incremental costs are $0.

If they were still within US territorial waters, I might agree. But they were 900 miles off of Mexico. -- Isab at April 9, 2014 7:23 PM
What if it had been a freighter? What if it had been only 200 miles out? What about 50 miles out? What about a supertanker of oil?

Posted by: Jim P. at April 9, 2014 9:13 PM

Now you are getting ridiculous.

50 miles out, a commercial boat could have picked them up for a reasonable fee. This is also within territorial limits of the US.
Supertankers of Oil are owned by the company transporting the stuff. They have insurance against loss, and ways to get a crew off a sinking boat.

If you want to have the maritime version of Triple A to call, don't take your sailboat into international waters. And don't hike your ass, onto the top of K2.

You know what I think? I don't think the baby was particularly sick, but that was the only hook they could think of to get the gubmit to come pick them off a sinking sailboat for free, in international waters.

No one has satisfactorily explained yet, what exactly was the unknown, unforeseen hazard that caused this sail boat to take on water when they started up the engine, and to be unsalvageable.

Back in the stone age, when I was a kid before cell phones and CB radios, a number of people every winter were foolhardy enough to go driving in a blizzard, ran out of gas, were stranded and froze to death in their vehicles. It was a common occurrence. Poor preparation and poor decision making, and government could not, and should not be responsible for saving your ass from your own stupidity.

My father never went anywhere without a full tank of gas, water, food, boots and a sleeping bag. He knew he was on his own, and prepared for it. Errors in judgment are often fatal in the real world.
He also didn't survive four years in the jungles of the South Pacific by being an idiot.

If they can, most people would help you out, but you cross the line when you get yourself in a dangerous and expensive situation, and think someone has a duty to rescue you.

People are expendable, and if it costs too much in resources to save you, whether you are in a Greenpeace ship trapped in the Antarctic ice, or sitting in a hospital needing a million dollar heart lung transplant, your insurance wont cover, it should be too fucking bad.

With regard to the family on the sailboat, what could the Coast Guard do, stand off and watch them sink?

This kind of reminds me of that incident a few years ago when a fire department let a home burn because the owner didn't pay the $75 annual fee for fire protection services. The property owners said they were aware of the fire department policy and the fee, but didn't pay because they didn't think a fire would ever happen to them.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

Another county nearby charges a $110 annual fee for fire protection services. If a property owner doesn't pay and has a fire, the fire department fights the fire and directly bills the property owner for the services ($1,100 per hour), kind of like a hospital directly bills patients who don't have insurance for emergency room services.

Of course billing doesn't necessarily lead to collecting, and hospitals sometimes go out of business if the cost of providing services for patients who don't pay is more than they can collect from patients who do pay.

I suppose the same thing could happen to fire departments that are supported by fees instead of property taxes if the property owners who pay aren't charged enough to cover services for those who don't pay.

The thing about billing for rescue services is it could be a slippery slope for a revenue grab. If you call 911, you have no control over who they send or how much they send. There are no controls or market forces. (I have personally seen serious over-zealous responses including 3 fire truck, two ambulances, and 3 police cars for a 2-car accident with no injuries in a low-traffic area.)

Say you are in your home and you have a heart attack, you shouldn't need to pay extra for the ambulance or phone call to 911, right? Similarly, if you are out on an established trail in a park or preserve, and have some random bad luck, I don't think a rescue should require billing.

So, while I don't think we should bail folks out who do truly stupid things like ignore evacuation orders, keep out/danger signs, etc. I think if somebody is doing something generally considered safe, there shouldn't be a charge.

Say you are in your home and you have a heart attack, you shouldn't need to pay extra for the ambulance or phone call to 911, right? Similarly, if you are out on an established trail in a park or preserve, and have some random bad luck, I don't think a rescue should require billing.

So, while I don't think we should bail folks out who do truly stupid things like ignore evacuation orders, keep out/danger signs, etc. I think if somebody is doing something generally considered safe, there shouldn't be a charge.

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell at April 10, 2014 8:23 AM

Boy are you naive. Ambulance services are usually private companies contracted to hospitals.

In most cases you will be sent a large bill for the ambulance ride, and,your insurance may, or may not cover it.

Did the taxes once for a woman whose teenage daughter fell off a bicycle in a wilderness area and ruptured her spleen. The kid got put on a flight for life out of the park. You should have seen the bill. The portion their insurance did not cover was almost 10k.

"I have no problem if someone as well-trained as Jeff Guinn is going up in somebody's Cessna."

Well, there it is: only certified Airline pilots (simulator time, instrument rating, aircraft systems written exam) should fly private planes- and it really doesn't matter if it's a Cessna or P-51, does it?

Life is full of people professing to tell others what to do.

Go get your commercial drivers license. It's the only way to be sure that you're safe driving your Insight.

P.S.- kudos to Jeff for those skills.

Boy are you naive. Ambulance services are usually private companies contracted to hospitals.

In most cases you will be sent a large bill for the ambulance ride, and,your insurance may, or may not cover it. -- Isab at April 10, 2014 4:05 PM

I don't know what neck of the woods you live in. Most of the United States is covered by volunteer fire and ambulance services. According to the USFA [t]he majority (96 percent) of the registered departments are local fire departments which include career, combination, and volunteer fire departments and fire districts. Further down on the page 71 percent are volunteers.

So the volunteer department may send a bill. I used to have to call 911 for my lady about every 6-9 months. I never saw it on any bill.

Even NYC has volunteer firefighters.

So the extra money spent to go rescue them is not really excessive. They will right it off as training. And the world moves on.

They interviewed the senior NCO of the jumpers. He said that they were well prepared for normal situations. So screaming and hollering about this is like screaming about people having to be be rescued from the New Mexican desert.

Isab,

As with Jim, I don't know where you're living, but I have had to call 911 in two different jurisdictions in Missouri and under two different fire station/volunteer fire station areas in Virginia, and I haven't been billed. This included calls for police, fire, AND ambulance (although not all at any one place, thankfully).

My experience is that either the ambulatory service is part of the hospital in which case it is covered under emergency care... typically only if admitted, which is most likely gonna happen in a real medical emergency. OR it is part of the fire/rescue services of the municipality.

That said, hospitals and doctors' offices have started the dubious practice of tacking on extra charges and then "waiving" them if insurance doesn't pay.

The two I have seen are an "after hours" charge for a weekend visit during regular operating hours and another one for a trip to the ER (when is an ER not open??). Most of the time, if you call and say, "what gives" they magically go away.

I could easily see this being billed as "medical transport" (like switching hospitals) when it's really "emergency services" so they can double-dip.

I could easily see this being billed as "medical transport" (like switching hospitals) when it's really "emergency services" so they can double-dip.

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell at April 10, 2014 5:53 PM

Chances are you will be doubled billed by everyone if you are uninsured. That way they get to write it all off if you don't pay.

If you are insured you will see one bill, which you insurance company pays half of. The hospital or ambulance service writes off the rest.

Just pointing out, the basic premise that government is covering rescue services inside of the US, in every case, is a faulty one.

Therefore, nothing wrong with recouping what you can, when the government provides those services.

I guarantee anyone is real trouble will be calling for help if they are in a position to do so.

I am just alarmed by the notion, that anyone who has the ability to communicate a 'need' seems to get top priority for rescue over those who attempt to make sure, that they don't need rescue because they plan ahead,take care of themselves, and don't deliberately put themselves into abnormally risky situations.

Sailing the pacific without a working engine, with two children under four qualifies as stupid, and extremely risky in my book.

Just pointing out, the basic premise that government is covering rescue services inside of the US, in every case, is a faulty one. -- Isab at April 10, 2014 7:29 PM

Regardless of a paid contract or volunteer -- generally, as long as they aren't abused by a call every other day, they are still going to transport your dumb ass to the hospital. True?

I am just alarmed by the notion, that anyone who has the ability to communicate a 'need' seems to get top priority for rescue over those who attempt to make sure, that they don't need rescue because they plan ahead,take care of themselves, and don't deliberately put themselves into abnormally risky situations.

As I noted above MSgt Bendle (USAF E-7) said in an interview with NBC that they were well prepared for all the normal situations. This was a paraphrase in the reporting that I heard. But of course facts don't count to opinion.

I have had my cars break down in my driveway because of a bad battery. I also had them die in a work parking lot. Same with starters and other things. So I called a tow truck. In this case they called the USCG and USN. Does that make them bad?

So the insistence that the family was in the wrong I think is unjustified. I think it was a confluence of bad events.

I am just alarmed by the notion, that anyone who has the ability to communicate a 'need' seems to get top priority for rescue over those who attempt to make sure, that they don't need rescue

If they don't need to be rescued, how are the folks who have "the ability to communicate a 'need'" getting priority over them? That's like saying the person who is in line at Starbucks is getting priority over the person who isn't even IN the Starbucks.

Isab: "Sailing the pacific without a working engine, with two children under four qualifies as stupid, and extremely risky in my book."

I'd call it common sense to not do just that; but, we all know "common sense" isn't all that common.

And, lastly, why should the kid die just because the parents are stupid?

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21658-should-eric-and-charlotte-kaufman-lose-their-children

"Should Eric and Charlotte Kaufman Lose Their Children?"

April 9, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Excerpts:

"So this incident has been making the news (New York Times, 4/8/14). It raises some issues about what parents may and may not do as custodians of their kids. Predictably, it’s raised the ire of many people on each side of the debate...

"...And, where parents are held up to scrutiny for endangering children, some people are sure to call for termination of their parental rights...

"...I’m perfectly happy for people to have whatever experiences they desire and take whatever risks come with them. If you want to climb Mt. Everest, you won’t find me standing in your way. If you want to sail the Pacific Ocean, I say “more power to you.” But when you get in trouble and want me to pay the cost of your rescue, I’ll give that a pass. I can’t guess what the involvement of three public entities including helicopters and dozens of rescue personnel might cost, but I’m sure it’s substantial. And I’d like the Kaufmans to pay it...

"...Still, the notion advanced by some that Child Protective Services should intervene and take Cora and Lyra from Eric and Charlotte isn’t right either...

"...the idea that, once parents make a mistake like the Kaufmanns did that they should lose their parenting rights is dangerously misguided. First, we know well that placing children in foster care should be a last resort reserved for the worst of parents – those who’ve proven themselves to be dangerous and incapable of improving. The Kaufmans don’t fall into that category. Foster care should be a last resort as well because the very fact of taking children from their parents and placing them in an alien environment is traumatic for them. And that’s if the foster home is a good one, which many are not. All too often, foster parents prove to be abusers themselves.

"Moreover, we constantly face the specter of state encroachment on family life and privacy, and child welfare agencies are the thin edge of the wedge. Every time a child is hurt, neglected or endangered, it’s all too easy to demand that someone somewhere do something about it. The Kaufman case is a good example. But every time we open the door to state intrusion into family life, it proves difficult to close it again. The state is like the proverbial camel with its nose under the tent. Pretty soon the beast will be living with you and likely shoving you out..."