Ed Shultz "Climbers Should Be Responsible..."

[rsmith6621]

Ed Just Said....

for the cost of search and rescue.....DO YOU AGREE

[warrior1]

1. I would think so.

Just like your trip to the ER if you called a EMS.

[sandnsea]

7. Firefighter Paramedics do not charge

They're the first responders in any given routine accident. Schultz is promoting privatizing public safety, even if that's not his intention. Because that's where requiring people to pay for their own rescue operations will lead.

[Mz Pip]

17. Sure they do

I had a couple of ER runs this year via our local fire department/first responders. I got a bill for about $1100 but fortunately my insurance paid for it. I just forwarded the bill to Kaiser and they took care of it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[sandnsea]

20. Paramedics, not ambulances

I'm sure these climbers will be charged for any ambulance service to a hospital. That's not the same thing as first responders, they don't charge in most of the country, nowhere I've ever lived or heard of.

[we can do it]

24. Many Towns Charge If They Transport You To A Medical Facility

[sandnsea]

31. As will medical transport for the climbers

Separate of the search and rescue operation. Just like an ambulance is separate of firefighter paramedics, who do not charge.

[NVMojo]

54. wrong in some cases, in Elko County Nevada, the amb ulance is county-owned

and they charge when they respond with 1st responders even if they take your carcass to the hospital, dead or alive.

[sandnsea]

105. par-a-med-ics

What is so complicated about the difference between the ambulance and the paramedics. :shrug:

A climber WILL have to pay his ambulance bill, his life flight bill, etc. Just like anybody else will pay their ambulance bill.

The emergency responder, the rescuer - whether firefighters and paramedics, or search and rescue - are separate and not billed.

[we can do it]

159. Well - You Are Not Exactly Correct

Firefighter/paramedics ARE the first responders and are the sole transport in our city. Also, the department I used to work at (full-time, professional) charges for transport.

[AngryAmish]

30. In Chicago they do

[sandnsea]

32. Paramedics from the fire dept?

[Ms. Toad]

110. Around here they charge.

Residents of the jurisdiction owning the equipment/employing the paramedics are generally not charged (it is treated as part of their tax benefits); non-residents are charged. There have been discussions recently of charging everyone (so the city/township can get reimbursed by insurance where it is covered), but forgiving the bill and/or any remainder for residents.

[mopinko]

125. you betcha

hubby took that ride last year. $450.

[sandnsea]

127. ride=ambulance

Not rescue paramedics from the fire dept. The climber would pay for their ride to the hospital too.

[mopinko]

148. no, ride=

the full team who thought that he had a heart attack. got the full treatment, and the bill.

[sandnsea]

150. The ambulance team

Not the rescue from being trapped somewhere in the house team. If ambulance teams never charged for medical care, then people would just call them whenever they were sick.

[we can do it]

161. Most Departments Have A Dual Role - I Have Done Rescue, Then Transport

on the same call.

[walldude]

45. Colorado too...

A couple years ago a truck lost a tire in front of me and when I swerved to avoid it I hit the shoulder and rolled my car a couple times. Luckily I walked away without a scratch(seat belts folks!). When the Fire Dept showed up they spent 20 minutes convincing me I needed to go to the hospital even though I insisted I felt fine and I had no insurance to pay for it. They managed to talk me into it and 2 weeks later I got a bill from the Fire Dept for $2500 dollars. Not to mention the bills from the hospital.

[northzax]

95. yes, that was the bill for transport

not the bill for the response. If you had refused to be taken to the hospital, they would not charge you, right?

[sandnsea]

107. For the ambulance

Our ambulance works out of the fire dept too. We do NOT get billed for anything else related to a rescue or response, and if you hadn't gone to the hospital, you wouldn't have been charged anything either.

[Drifter]

144. Invalid comparison

A house fire, or car accident, etc. can happen to anyone.

Being trapped on a mountain in a winter storm can NOT happen to everyone.
These men made a choice to participate in this activity, and must carry the burden of their mistakes.

Cheers
Drifter

[sandnsea]

151. If you drive in the mountains

It most certainly can. People get stuck and lost all the time, doing all sorts of things.

[mckara]

2. You Pays Yous Nickels and You Takes Yous Chances

n/t

[Missy M]

3. Yes, climbers should be responsible for the cost because...

they were doing the climb for their personal pleasure and knew the dangers beforehand.

[tularetom]

4. It's the Christmas season people

regadless of how you feel about the responsibility of these climbers, the cost to the public of resucing them (which we all hope is the outcome) would be less than 30 seconds of the fuckin Iraq "war". So I'll be more than happy to pay my "fair share" of the cost of search and rescue for these guys.

[rolleitreks]

104. Poor excuse for picking a man's pocket once a year. -- E Scrooge n/t

[BOSSHOG]

5. Let me waffle on this one

I understand the National Guard is conducting the search, ergo, if the climbers pay taxes they are paying for the search and rescue. After all, isn't that part of their mission?

[CatWoman]

13. thank you Boss Hogg for some well-needed

sense of clarity on this thread.

[BOSSHOG]

23. Thank You my Dear

Occasionally through the fog of my feeble mind comes a good thought.

[NVMojo]

56. you are forgetting that one event like this can wipe out a county or a state

with their search and rescue budget and leave no $$$ without going into the red for anyone else. And don't forget, the middle class pays the most taxes according to some Dems in Congress.

[BOSSHOG]

57. Okay

So we don't supposed to use the service because it might bust the bank? So why have it? And should cost be considered when lives are involved?

[bobbolink]

130. Should cost be considered when lives are at stake?

Well, would that include universal health care?

Low-income housing and wiping out homelessness?

Good nutrition for all citizens?

I don't disagree with you about search and rescue. I just would like to see that logic apply to ALL situations of need!

Would that be possible?

[Trajan]

6. And if the climbers were inner city kids without the means to pay ?

What then O'Libertarian ?

[Generator]

22. If someone is paying for inner city kids to climb mountains in winter

then I'd SUE them for murder and child endangerment if they lived for doing that to CHILDREN! It's not a hike in the woods. It's climbing a fucking mountain in winter-we had 100 mile an hour winds up there-hell in the city we had 60 mile an hour winds. It's extreme risk. This is a RICH person's sport-they aren't from Oregon-they are from Texas and New York-using the mountain as a stepping stone to bigger "kills" like all those big ones overseas.

[seemunkee]

44. Just because rich people climb doesn't mean its a rich persons sport

I've been climbing for 35 years and don't know a single person that would be considered rich. My best friend is an instructor for The Mountaineers and he is far from rich.

[whoneedstickets]

126. Its like golf....

Lots of people hack around public courses, its not a rich man's sport unless you want to play at Pine Valley or Augusta National (read: Everest and McKinley) where you need to have the $ to get in the door (unless you live in the neighborhood and have figured out how to sneak on).

[piedmont]

62. Assume much? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Um, they do have inner city kids climb mountains.

Via various charitable groups that get kids out of the city and into nature. I've known such programs getting kids to summit Rainer, technically a harder climb than Hood if I'm not mistaken.

"This is a RICH person's sport"

!

Oh, this land is your land
This land is my land...

[Leopolds Ghost]

119. Absolutely Right. Inner-city kids should not be allowed to climb mountains.

Only kids with the money to BUY (not rent) their equipment should be allowed to climb Mount Hood. Allowing poor black kids to camp and hike is child endangerment. :eyes:

[CTyankee]

140. I'm not a climber but I was on Mt Etna during a severe snowstorm

in December of 05. Some in the group were from Chicago and when the wind got to THEM I knew we were in trouble!

Luckily, we made it down in our little bus, but not without some harrowing turns and slides and our bus driver calling us Americans "pazzi" (crazy).

I wonder what kind of rescue we would have gotten and what kind of charges we would have incurred from the local Sicilian authorities!

[valerief]

26. Oh, yeah, like inner city kids would be stupid enough to climb

that mountain.

:spank:

[Trajan]

98. Compassion is a hallmark of liberal civilization ....

Got some ? ...

Or just more hatred ?

[piedmont]

8. No...

If they did, we'd soon hear the hew and cry for ANYONE who needs search and rescue in the wilderness to have to pay. I think we should encourage people to get outdoors and into the woods, and this wouldn't do it.
I might be ok with charging a user fee for certain publicly owned places where it happens often. It would basically be your insurance policy. If you need SAR, and you paid the fee, then the park or whoever took your money assumes the cost of the SAR.

[Zookeeper]

15. That's a great idea, Piedmont...

Some sort of insurance policy for people involved with extreme sports that would cover the costs of a search and rescue.

[piedmont]

39. Really, just a user fee for the location and activity...

which would basically be an insurance policy. Say 1 out of 100,000 users need SAR, whih costs $1 million. 1000000/100000=$10 user fee. But it's already been brought up that we DO pay for these things, as part of our taxes. And moutain-climbing generates millions of dollars for the Oregon economy, with tax being paid at every transaction along the way. So the costs of these people being rescued every once in while is paid for--with their own tax money.

[petronius]

85. I would imagine they did pay a user fee

I know I pay a fee every time I get a back-country permit in Nat. Park or Nat. Forest land here in the Sierra - I assume Mt. Hood is the same. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that some of my $5 - $15 payments went to the cost of rescuing these guys (or other lost climbers).

Excellent posts by you on this thread...

[piedmont]

109. They do, from the websites I've seen...

I don't know how they allocate the funds from those, though.

"I know I pay a fee every time I get a back-country permit in Nat. Park or Nat. Forest land here in the Sierra - I assume Mt. Hood is the same. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that some of my $5 - $15 payments went to the cost of rescuing these guys (or other lost climbers)."

Me too.


"Excellent posts by you on this thread..."

Thanks
:-)

[leftyclimber]

9. And parents of lost children

and swimmers (MOST of NPS SAR ops) and and and and....

:sarcasm:

[QuestionAll...]

10. No, and it's stupid to even think about this while they

are still missing. (they are still missing, aren't they?)

I hate stupid shit talk like this that CNN has cast their line out for and fools grab at it hard.
Have some goddamn respect for yourselves and for the families involved and shut up about $$$$$ already.
You want to worry about expenditures, talk about the pentragon missing trillions or the billions in iraq cheney is skimming.

Ed, you stupid wanker (with unfortunately a too large following).

[Mythsaje]

11. My wife and I were talking about this the other day...

Both of us say "NO."

We might as well start charging people for ALL emergency responses, particularly those that can be attributed to their negligence. Accidentally start your house on fire? The Fire Department will charge you for their time and resources. Have to file a police report? That'll be twenty dollars, please.

We pay taxes already for these kinds of things. Even as a left-libertarian, I consider this type of shit to be ridiculous. If you get into an accident on the freeway and they have to jaw you out of your car, they don't CHARGE you for it...even if the accident was your fault.

Mark this up as yet another thing I disagree with Ed about. So far he runs about 50%.

[treestar]

63. I see a difference there

We don't have to charge people for ordinary rescues.

We already do charge people for ambulances, too.

This is an rather elite activity, so it's hard to justify society being responsible for it, but the things you cited aren't unreasonable for society to be responsible for, since the individuals involved were just living and not taking huge risks.

[Mythsaje]

88. I think it depends on how you quantify "huge" risks...

I don't begrudge rescuing anyone who needs it, whether they're engaged in an "elite" activity or not. And I'm not sure it's all that elite anyway. People who push the envelope of what is safe or normal are rarely "elitists" as we may think of them.

And, in all honesty, traveling on our roads at various times can be VERY risky, in opposite proportion to the skill of the driver and the responsiveness of the vehicle, combined with weather conditions and the driver's familiarity with them. AND the respective experience of the other drivers on the road.

This comes to the forefront of our attention everytime it happens because it happens once, twice, or maybe three times a season. Nationwide, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of serious car accidents a day.

So what's the comparable risk, all totaled?

[northzax]

96. what if they were speeding?

not wearing their seatbelts, had their tires under/over inflated, didn't check their brakes, were driving in bad weather? How do we quantify the level of risk it entails?

if you are a smoker, for instance, you are much more likely to set your house on fire, should the Fire Department charge to put out those fires?

[mitchtv]

12. Insurance before climbing. Should be part of the park

fees.

[Zookeeper]

14. Unfortunately, with so many of our country's resources....

being wasted on fighting an unnecessary war and underwriting large corporations, we don't have enough money to spend on education, health care and infrastructure. So, we have to cut something. To me, mountain climbing is a hobby. And it's extreme enough, that it isn't the same thing as going for a hike in a state park.

One of my hobbies is woodworking. If I cut off my fingers, I'm responsible for paying for an ambulance and medical care.

[leftyclimber]

18. I guess that's the thing.

Some folks are trying to conflate volunteer SAR efforts with not having to pay medical bills and so forth.

Assuming that these remaining two guys are found alive (not likely, but it sure would be nice for their families and friends, no?), they will be responsible for their medical bills, which will likely be very expensive -- frostbite, dehydration, hypothermia, who knows what's broken ...

It's not like someone at the hospital's going to say, "oh, you were climbing -- you get a free pass."

One of the guides at a place I climb took a television-size block of rock on his leg about a year and a half ago, while making sure his clients got out of the way of the rockfall (he did, and they were safe). The medevac alone cost 22 grand. I have no clue what the rest of his medical expenses were, but considering the docs stuck a couple of titanium rods in his leg, the fact that he went through a TON of physical therapy, and all of the other junk that went with it, I'm sure they were pretty steep.

Nice to know, though, that there are a bunch of people out there that seem to think recreation should only be for the wealthy.

[sandnsea]

37. If your hand gets stuck in a table saw

Should first responders check your bank account before responding - or is that what you pay taxes for?

[Zookeeper]

61. Let's see...

the cost of a first responder coming to my suburban neighborhood, yes, I pay taxes for that, just like you pay taxes in case you need firefighters or police officers. And I have medical insurance to cover the cost of an ambulance and other care.

But, is it fair for extreme sports hobbyists to expect other people to pay taxes to cover the extreme costs of their SAR if something goes wrong? Why are they more entitled to that money than homeless people or public school students sitting in overcrowded and dilapidated classrooms?

The millions of dollars spent on these rescues could help people who are just trying to meet their basic needs rather than people engaging in potentially very expensive hobbies.

In a perfect America, we would use our resources to help everyone. Instead, we support the military industrial complex and large corporations. Until that changes, I think extreme sports hobbyists should take out insurance policies to cover the cost of their SAR.

On edit: Actually, I try to stick to hand tools as much as possible. I don't own a table saw because they are dangerous and a risk I don't want to take.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Why don't we worry about cutting funds for the war then

It seems to me that this is just a distraction from the real problems.

[Zookeeper]

66. I'm all in favor of cutting funds for the war....

when we do, we can do great things for our country and our citizens.

When do you think that's going to happen?

Rather than repeating myself, I'll ask you to read my above post. I have great sympathy for the climbers and their families, but I think it would be reasonable for extreme sports hobbyists to have insurance policies that cover the costs of SAR. Extreme hobby, extreme rescue costs.

That said, I'm certainly not in favor of abandoning them, but I do think we need to look at the issue.

[Nite Owl]

16. They did this climb by choice

and now others are risking their lives and money to locate them. I have to agree with Ed on this one, it wasn't an accident it was a choice.

[Beaverhausen]

19. Isn't Search and Rescue the job of these people?

I'm probably wrong here but I'm not sure why it would cost more to pay for people to do their job?

[northzax]

97. the dirty little secret

that people advocating charging won't tell you about is that ALL the people actually on the mountain doing S+R are volunteers. So there are no expenses associated with that part of the S+R effort. The helicopters and airplanes are National Guard or donated by companies to test technology. The Guard ones would be flying anyway on training missions, it's what they do, the added cost is minimal.

[Zookeeper]

115. If that's true, then start a thread with evidence of that....

because as far as I can tell, many of us think these are taxpayer funded SAR operations. If they aren't, I say "Wonderful!" It would be a load off my mind and I think everyone who is concerned about it would be glad to hear that as well.

[northzax]

146. well, partially funded

in that the helicopters and airplanes belong to the National Guard.

But the on the ground searching is being done by the Crag Rats, Corvallis Search and Rescue and Portland Mountain Rescue, all non-profits staffed by volunteers (with excellent assistance from the 304th rescue squadron.)

I know that everyone thinks this is a huge taxpayer burden, but it's really not. I just counted, this is my 18th post pointing this out. Guardsmen and women don't get overtime, and would be flying on training missions anyway, no law enforcement is taken off the streets, this whole multi-day search isn't going to cost more and roughly $50,000 over what these agencies would be spending anyway. I don't think anyone would argue that $50,000 isn't worth three lives, would you?

[sandnsea]

21. Fat people should pay their own health care

They let themselves get fat and sick, brought it on themselves, to hell with them.

Same logic people, exact same logic.

:argh:

[Missy M]

25. Most of those fat people probably do pay their own...

insurance and medical bills.

[sandnsea]

27. You support that then?

You don't support a universal health plan where we all contribute according to our income and all get health care when we need it?

[Missy M]

41. I do support a universal health plan where we all contribute...

according to our income and want health care for all people. I just made a statement that most fat people probably pay for health insurance and their medical bills. My statement had nothing to do with being against universal health care. Climbing a mountain has nothing to do with universal health care when people become ill whether they are thin, fat or otherwise. The mountain climbers know how dangerous their hobby is and should have insurance to cover the costs of rescue. We all know how dangerous driving a car or motorcycle can be and we must have insurance to cover that danger or we aren't allowed to drive, the same should be for dangerous hobbies.

[sandnsea]

102. It's all the same thing

If people eat dangerous food and get sick, they should pay to get well. Same as mountain climbing or driving or any other dangerous activity, based on your standards.

Or, we're a community of people who acknowledge that anybody can have an emergency at any time, and we bear the cost together.

[Ms. Toad]

111. There is a difference between normal risk of an emergency

and choosing to engage in a risky recreational activity.

I dive, and carry insurance to cover diving accidents because as wonderful as it is, diving is a risky activity, medical care is often not covered by insurance and incidental expenses associated with rescue never are. I also take steps to minimize my risk - like taking additional classes, taking refresher courses if I've been out of the water a long time, etc.

Bottom line is that I don't expect the rest of society to bear the cost for the inherently risky way in which I choose to spend my free time.

That said, there is a line somewhere between normal risks associated with the recreational activity (for which I believe I should bear my own costs) and relatively unpredictable risks - the costs for which I think it is reasonable for society to bear. Where that line is is where I get relatively fuzzy. Is a freak snow storm no one predicted is probably a risk we should share. A major snow storm that was predicted for Wednesday morning comes in Tuesday night - anyone still on the mountain Tuesday night probably should bear the costs for cutting it that close, given how predictably unpredictable weather is.

To fit it into your way of looking at things - the normal risks associated with a recreational activity are not, in my mind, an emergency. When something unexpected creates a much larger risk than the normal recreational risk, it becomes an emergency which could happen to anyone and then we should all bear the costs.

[Zookeeper]

120. Well said, Ms. Toad. n/t

[sandnsea]

128. No, because accidents happen to anybody

We had an old guy get lost on a walk last year. The entire town searched for him for several days. His dog got away from him, he went into a wooded area to get her, and fell and was unable to move. It doesn't matter whether people are taking every precaution and engaged in mundane activities, or taking every precaution and engaged in riskier activities. Accidents happen. It's the accident or misjudgment that causes the emergency. It is rare when experts need assistance, in comparison to the every day emergency. There's no more reason to rescue that old man who made the mistake of going into an unfamiliar area than to rescue those mountain climbers. A family just got lost looking for a Christmas tree. I don't know what kind of mistakes or misjudgments were made because it got little publicity. Rescue them, or leave 4 little kids to die because of the mistakes of the parent? If the parent doesn't pay, bill the kids?

If people are responsible for the consequences of their own behavior, then it should be all behavior and nobody should expect society to share any of the burdens.

Life happens regardless of how hard one tries to do everything right. People shouldn't be limited by fear of being abandoned in a crisis.

[Ms. Toad]

155. I didn't say don't rescue them...

everyone should be rescued, so long as the rescue doesn't unnecessarily risk others' lives. My assessment went only to who should bear the cost of the rescue. I don't know enough about this particular situation to know whether I would put this particular group of mountain climbers in the normal risk that goes with the activity (they should cover it - or have purchased insurance to cover it) - or the emergency category (it should be a societal cost).

What I do know is that all of the things you cited as examples are all true emergencies - not normal challenges/risks associated with engaging in recreational behavior which is specifically classified as risky (if you aren't sure what these are, check out the exclusion list on any life insurance policy). People shouldn't live in fear of being abandoned in a crisis, but society should also not be required to bear all of the inevitable costs associated with risky voluntary activities.

As a diver, in addition to the cost of equipment, I also need to be able to pay the cost of a hyberbaric chamber, emergency transport out of remote locations, etc. Those are normal (and costly) risks associated with recreational diving. Insurance is readily available and relatively inexpensive. I have weighed the various possibilities and purchased insurance to cover some costs and have not with respect to other costs (which I fully expect to bear, if those risks should come to pass). It is not fair for me to expect someone else to pay the freight for routine risks associated my recreational activity - any more than it would be fair for me to expect society to pay for the equipment I need to engage in the activity in the first place - because the risks are part and parcel of the activity, quite a different situation from walking the dog or hunting for a Christmas tree.

[sandnsea]

156. I checked the insurance

You either haven't checked your policy carefully and are deluded about what it covers, or you're intentionally misinforming others.

Emergency evacuation insurance is for medical costs, generally to evacuate people from foreign countries. Everybody in THIS country is responsible for their own medical costs, no matter how or why they're sick or injured. Your long list of MEDICAL treatment isn't relevant, and if you have medical insurance, it ought to cover all of it anyway.

It DOES NOT cover search and rescue and most policies don't even cover high risk activities to begin with. The few that do have a very minimal cap that wouldn't begin to cover the costs.

Walking a dog, driving in snowy mountains for a tree, hiking in backcountry, starting a camp fire, fishing in the ocean, kayaking in a calm bay, snorkling, scuba diving. At what point does one activity become all that more dangerous than another, especially when you calculate experience into the equation.

Either everybody who goes into the outdoors carries the insurance, or we just pay our taxes and rescue those in need. I can't believe any progressive would think another insurance scam would be beneficial to anybody.

[Ms. Toad]

162. I think you misunderstood.

I was speaking of sports specific insurance which is designed to mitigate the risks associated with specific sports. Diving injuries are often not covered by medical insurance, so specialized insurance is necessary unless the diver has a large enough bank roll to cover treatment in a hyperbaric chamber (the most commonly required emergency treatment for divers. Evacuation coverage is part of the coverage, but it is certainly not all of what is included. Decent diving specific coverage is available relatively cheaply (~$130 a year) to cover the kinds of risks I identified which are associated with diving, and to fill the gaps deliberately created around the edges of standard insurance policies. http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/insurance/plans.asp It would be silly to purchase dive insurance if I were a mountain climber. I am not a mountain climber - I do not specifically know what insurance is available to mediate the risks associated with mountain climbing, but sports specific insurance is available for most sports and I expect mountain climbing is no exception. If I engaged in that sport, I would certainly research what insurance was available and would treat it as part of the cost of engaging in that particular recreational activity.

As to where the cutoff is, as I suggested earlier, if the activity is routinely listed as a high risk activity on life insurance applications (a sample list here: http://www.forsalebyowner.com/term-life-insurance-tips.php), then it is probably more dangerous than the rest of society ought to be expected to bear the cost for. None of the activities you suggested are on that list except for scuba diving. Mountain climbing and scuba diving are, incidentally, on that list and is on every similar list I have seen.

As noted, it is my choice to dive. I accepted the significantly higher than average risks associated with diving when I took up the sport. Most folks I have spoken with who engage in similarly risky activities have a similar philosophy. I can choose to maintain enough money in savings to pay the bills for those risks should they materialize, or I can purchase insurance to cover them. but I would not presume to pass the costs on to you in the form of additional taxes.

[sandnsea]

163. That's not SAR

There's nothing in there about sending out boats and divers to retrieve you or your body, or rescue you if a boat gets stranded or some such. It's medical and trip insurance.

[nolabels]

78. Stupid people should pay for their own education

After all it's not the fault of the rest of society that they are stupid :shrug:

The clue with Ed is that he likes to debate about an amorphous outrage that have no real solutions (in his mind mostly). I don't know what anybody would be expecting anyway, his most important job is to be a talk show host. Most of what belches out just seems to be just so much shtick with the major proof being what he declares about himself personally over the air.

It's entertainment already :shrug:

[Lizardking1]

28. It depends

If you're engaging in activity which is reasonably foreseen and for which the facility is designed -- e.g. break a leg while skiing or become lost while hiking in a National Park -- that's not considered "dangerous" and the rescuee shouldn't have to pay.

But if you are engaged in a dangerous activity in which very few people participate and in a place not designed for that activity, the rescuee should be liable for all evacuation expenses. That would include sailing across the ocean in small boats or mountain climbing.

[leftyclimber]

33. Wait a minute.

Mountains are not designed for mountain climbing? What, exactly, are mountaineers supposed to climb, then? Sidewalks? (oblique Python reference, not actual suggestion)

Who gets to be the arbiter of what's safe and what's dangerous?

[piedmont]

46. 10,000 summit attempts per year on Mt. Hood. Do you know how much money that brings to the economy?

They buy supplies, hire guides, stay at nearby lodges, etc. etc., while paying taxes all along the way. I'd say this SAR is more than paid for. This looks like the "fun-police" trying to dictate, economically (and unfairly, since it's paid for), what people can and can't do with their free time.

[BushOut06]

58. I wonder what 10,000 annual attempts does to Mt Hood itself

Doesn't seem possible that you could have that many people climbing one mountain every year, and it not have a negative impact upon the mountain.

[piedmont]

60. such as?

If they stick to certain routes, and pack out their trash, it would be pretty minimal. What is a man (or 10,000 of them) to a mountain? Just a flea crawling on its back.

[treestar]

65. Not trying to dictate, just deciding where the risk should go

Your comparison does not hold because we all pay taxes, but how much should be burden society with our choices is the question.

If I choose to go parachuting as a hobby, I sure don't expect society to pick up the pieces if it goes wrong. Most people pick less dangerous hobbies. And do things that are closer and don't involve such a dramatic rescue attempt.

In fact, people could die trying to make this rescue, that is asking too much of society IMO, and I would not demand that the rest of society be responsible for my choice on that matter.

[piedmont]

69. Society doesn't get to decide ALL of life's decisions, thankfully.

"In fact, people could die trying to make this rescue, that is asking too much of society IMO, and I would not demand that the rest of society be responsible for my choice on that matter."

SAR workers are volunteer-- they know the risks.

And again, if one expensive rescue happens per 10,000 (or more) attempts, it's not that much money, given what the climbers give back to the economy in purchases and taxes over and above the taxes they'd otherwise pay.

[Marie26]

77. Yeah, let's get the lawyers involved.

Lawyers love calculating the "reasonable foreseeability" of any awful event. And then the lawsuits can begin!

[Pithlet]

29. No.

Not anymore than I believe we should start charging people who's houses have burned down. Or drivers who got caught in a flash flood. Or a person who was mugged walking down a dark ally in the middle of the night. Search and rescue teams, like police and firefighters and other forms of rescue, aren't just there for people who are smart and perfect and never make mistakes. They're there for all of us. We all benefit from them even if we're fortunate enough to never need their services directly.

If a family member hesitates for even a couple of hours because they're afraid of the cost they might incur if judged at fault, it could mean death for all of them. We have search and rescue, fire fighters, police etc. because we collectively care about ourselves as a society. People who start bitching about the costs and insisting people get charged miss that very important point. A point that I'm sure would suddenly become very readily apparent to these perfect people should they ever find themselves staring at the evidence of their own human infallibility, and realize they're in need of such services.

[BattyDem]

43. Exactly!

:toast:

[Left Is Write]

83. Perfect answer. Thank you.

And I'm just going to take this moment to remember Jon Francis, another climber/hiker.

http://www.jonfrancis.org/

http://thatsloanegirl.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_thatsloanegirl_archive.html

[Jim__]

34. As a society, we all have to accept the responsibility to help people in an

emergency. If we can't do that, we're not much of a society.

I realize these people were doing something dangerous. We all do something dangerous sometimes. If we're going to put limits on what society will support, we should make that clear before-hand. But, would anyone really propose that we NOT do our best to help these guys even if they had agreed to that before-hand. When someone is in trouble, you do what you can to help.

[jwirr]

35. We live in an area where ice fishing and hiking in the woods

often end in million dollar costs for the small number of taxpayers who live here. It hurts.

[Jim__]

40. That sounds like a funding problem - I mean we need to share the

costs across a wider area. I'm not sure it means that a policy of search and rescue is wrong.

[Pithlet]

50. I agree.

Because areas with those types of risks also gain financially because of those risks with the tourist revenue. It could be the local government is somehow missing out on a piece of that pie, or that area is somehow being overlooked by services that generally cover a wider area.

[jwirr]

55. I agree that there should be shared costs maybe between

the state and county. We are a tourism area because of all the lakes and woods that are located in our area and people from all over the country come here to visit. Many are greenhorns who think a walk in the woods is easy but there are no street signs once you can no longer see your car. As to the ice fishing, it has been raining here instead of snowing and there are still ice houses setting out on the lake!! Fortunately most ice fishers do know better.

[Zookeeper]

51. Well, that's it....

It would be lovely is we had the resources to take care of all people in all situations. But, thanks to the Rethugs and the military industrial complex, we don't.

Let's look at the resources we DO have available, NOW (not when the U.S. becomes a perfect benevolent country). Many American children are sitting in overcrowded classrooms in dilapidated buildings. Homeless families are sleeping on the street. Millions of Americans are without health care.

Yes, we want to help people in distress and I have great sympathy for the families of the climbers, but I think we are at the point of requiring people who engage in extreme sports to bear the costs of their hobby.

As I said in another thread, one of my hobbies is woodworking. If I cut off my fingers, I'm responsible for covering the costs of an ambulance and medical care.

I think there should be insurance policies to cover SAR for extreme sports hobbyists.

[northzax]

99. in fact

I think that your health insurance should charge you more to cover your added risk of injury from such a dangerous hobby. I certainly don't want my insurance pool covering your idiocy. You should be forced to purchase special "woodworking' insurance to cover that. Why is my insurance pool being used to cover your dangerous activity? you are much more likely to suffer an injury from your hobby than I am from mine and to require additional medical expenses. seems reasonable, no?

I mean my life insurance policy forbids certain activities deemed too dangerous, atheletes are routinely banned from doing things like skiing or riding motorcycles, right?

[Zookeeper]

113. Actually, I go out of my way to minimize the risks....

of my hobby. I don't chop off my fingers because I don't use a table saw. I use hand planes and hand saws as much as possible. Even if I injure myself, your tax dollars aren't going to pay for me to be searched for and airlifted by helicopter from a mountain. And, believe me, my insurance premiums will more than cover any injury I receive.

More importantly, tax dollars won't be siphoned from schools, the environment and social services to pay for my hobby.

[LanternWaste]

36. Seems to me that things like SAR, saving lives, etc

Seems to me that things like SAR, saving lives, etc are the very best things tax revenues could go to, and the very last ones on the list to get questioned.

That anyone would think this should be payed OOP is about the most absurd thing I've read this week (but the week is still young...).

[Zookeeper]

71. I think funding education, health care for the uninsured,

and helping the homeless are the very best things our tax revenues could go to. Not underwriting extreme hobbies.

[LanternWaste]

91. I didn't write, 'underwriting'

I didn't write, 'underwriting'. I wrote 'SAR and saving lives'. That's an implication that is disingenuous at best.

Argue it up all you want to, man-- but it's these very tax expenditures that I believe illustrate that we haven't lost all sense of decency yet.

But yeah... helping the homeless, health care and education are right up therewith me too.

[BattyDem]

42. No!

Taxpayer's already pay for the National Guard as well as the police force, fire department and EMT services. Those groups exist to help people, yet when they actually need help, some idiot always comes along as says they should pay for it because they got what they deserved.

Is this what it has come to in this country? Will there be a litmus test to determine which people were merely victims of circumstance and which people "created" their own misery? Who decides?

If a person drives in bad weather, couldn't the argument be made that they knowingly risked their life and safety so they got what they deserved? If a plane crashes and there are survivors who need help, couldn't the argument be made that they knowingly risked their life and safety the moment they decided to fly and so they got what they deserved? If a drowning person needs to be rescued by a lifeguard, couldn't the argument be made that they knowingly risked their life and safety by going into the water in the first place?

You could apply that argument to everything! Basically, if you do anything other than sit in your own home, you're risking your life.

Honestly, I think it was foolish to climb a mountain when there was a strong possibility of a snow storm. HOWEVER, I don't think people should be punished for living their lives and/or making an error in judgement. Where's the compassion? Where's the understanding? Remember when BushCo wanted to charge Americans a fee to be evacuated from Lebanon? This is just more of the same shit! If we start charging people for help, how long will it be before they stop asking and try to handle a situation on their own ... and possibly make it worse? We already have people who need medical attention yet won't go to the doctor because they can't afford it. Now we want to create a situation where people who need help in other circumstances will think of the cost before their own well-being?

:wtf:

The cost of rescuing someone was never an issue before BushCo came into power. Think about that!

[Lurking Dem]

47. A $5 MLU rental

could have saved their lives.

Not sure really how I feel about paying for the rescue. It all feels too terribly tragic given the circumstances. But offhand, I'd say "no" they shouldn't have to pay.

[Strelnikov_]

67. Yep.

A MLU is a device that, when activated, sends a signal that rescuers can use to help find the subject on Mount Hood. It is available for a $5 rental fee at Portland-area outdoor shops and the Mount Hood Inn.

http://www.pmru.org/pressroom/headlines/hoodstranded011203.html

The climbers were experienced mountaineers and carried three important safety devices - a cell phone to call for help, a GPS receiver to give the exact coordinates of their location and a Mountain Locator Unit (MLU) transmitter to provide a second means of locating the party.

PMR carries a MLU receiver and regularly trains in its use for locating climbers in trouble on Mount Hood.

MLU's are rental devices that are unique to Mount Hood. The program was started and is overseen by the Mountain Signal Memorial Fund based in Portland, Oregon.

[michaz]

48. That is like saying

that people should be responsible for the damage done to their property (the one's without insurance) and their rescue in hurricanes and tornados. Especially the ones that choose to rebuild in the same spots.

[shaniqua6392]

49. I live in Michigan and we always have people doing stupid things

like snowmobiling on half frozen lakes, driving their trucks out on the ice, etc. I think they should pay back some of the cost of these rescues. I have seen stories on rescues of people for the second time. There should be some sort of a fine/ticket system for doing reckless things that have a bad outcome. I am not saying people should pay the entire cost of a rescue, but there should be a fine of some sort. The proceeds from the fine/ticket could be split among the rescue team as a bonus. They often risk their lives trying to save people who do stupid things. Maybe part of the fine could be used for a fund to give to the rescuers family when one of their loved ones dies trying to save someone who rode a snowmobile over one inch thick ice on Lake Erie or something. Just a suggestion.

[NVMojo]

52. yes, but up to a point and there should be a means to judge responsibility

here as in filing a trip report before embarking out into an area that can be treacherous in the winter. We charge idiots for setting fire to public lands so why not?

[treestar]

68. Exactly, there is too much of an either/or attitude in these arguments

that we not draw the line anywhere.

This activity seems exotic and elite, too. Ordinary hikers don't go far enough, either, some of the posters seem to try to equate this stuff with ordinary hikers.

If we charge anybody for an ambulance for ordinary illnesses and accidents then why not for this?

[ripple]

53. That's absurd

A good number of accidents(auto, fire, drowning, etc.) are the result of human error. Part of the reason we pay taxes is so that we can have the necessary services to assist in case of an emergency- no matter the cause.

What an irresponsible thing for Shultz to say in the midst of such a tragic situation. For Christ's sakes, he could at least wait until they're found or their bodies are recovered before spouting off with that shit.

[MrSlayer]

59. Yes, I'm for personal responsibility.

I hate to be cold but if you are stupid enough to go mountain climbing and then get lost, you're on your own bud. If people have to come to your aid due to your foolishness then you should have to pay for it. You have to pay for an ambulance when you call one regardless of why so why should this far more expensive and completely avoidable search and rescue be any different?

[stray cat]

64. Do firemen charge to put out fires?

[Lurking Dem]

72. Depends on where you live.

The town I am in it used to be that way because property taxes weren't enough to cover the cost.

You paid in advance voluntarily and if you didn't they let your house burn down.

[Drifter]

70. Yes, like insurance ...

If you participate in a potentially dangerous hobby, you pay a nominal fee. In the event that you are rescued, then the cost of the rescue is paid by the insurance company. It's a bit like car insurance.

Cheers
Drifter

[Marie26]

73. What is wrong with people?

Are we all Republicans now? Or has the Bushco mentality of "I've got mine, screw you" seeped into the wider culture? Should firemen charge to put out a fire, police charge to rescue a kidnapped child, & good samaritans receive a commission? The key linchpin of any society, any democracy, is that we are all in this together.

[spoony]

80. I completely agree.

Well stated

[devilgrrl]

87. I couldn't agree with you more!!!!!

Let's get rid of all rescue services. We'll adopt a pay as you go system. You can't pay - tough beans, your house burns down.

This is the United States of You're On Your Own! Suck it up!

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. IMHO...

it's a form of extortion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. i think its cos the economy is downhill..and most people are insecure about their jobs

people are less likely to be generous during poor economic growth...

this is why most progressive social programs are passed when the middle class are doing well...not fighting for survival..

[cboy4]

129. Thank you. This place is slowly going insane.

And I'm serious.

[nini]

74. I wonder what the rescuers think?

Do they volunteer to save people because they can pay, or because they need help?

[ripple]

76. I have a feeling that cost is the furthest thing from their minds right now n/t

[northzax]

100. in this case

the rescuers are thinking "there but for the grace of God go I" or some such equivalent.

[sandnsea]

108. They willingly put their lives on the line

But the rest of this dumbass country can't even put phony piles of paper on the line. Pathetic.

[warrens]

75. That's what we all pay taxes for

Should that poor guy who got lost and died...should his wife and kids have to pay too?

I think they were kinda stupid going up in December and they should have turned back when the weather turned, but...

[derby378]

79. That's what taxes are for

Now, if they were doing something illegal, I could see demanding that they pay restitution to the state for their rescue. Aside from that, NO.

[devilgrrl]

81. No, I don't agree. I rather my tax dollars save lost hikers than start illegal wars in the ME

Yeah everybody. Search and rescue is draining the nation's wallet - let's get rid of it outright.

Feel better now?

:sarcasm:

[WI_DEM]

82. So if there all dead does Ed want their families to pay?

[zanne]

84. Paramedics and pilots also risk their lives to save them.

Of course, I want people to be rescued. I also want the rescuers to come out of it alive. I don't know about Mt. Hood, but up here people have to be rescued from the mountains pretty often. Or, people who decide to take a hike up a small mountain in the White Mts. and get lost. Alot of people have to get involved in searching for them. These are not experienced hikers who plan a climb months ahead of time--they're weekenders who decide on a whim to climb a mountain, knowing nothing about the terrain or the hazards along the way. They aren't children; they're adults doing something stupid that all of us have to pay for. I'm not usually a hardass about things like this, but we shouldn't have to pay for somebody's overwhelming need to climb a mountain.

[maxsolomon]

86. if you're dead do you have to pay?

i contribute to search & rescue every year.

[Raine]

89. No

[Old and In the Way]

90. There are rescues and there are rescues.

Getting lost in the woods or saving someone from drowning seems to be typical and expected costs for society to fund. Mountain climbing is inherently high risk and high cost to society to support for the benefit of the few. Obviously, it would be unfair and unethical to consider such a thing for these climbers who are still lost tonight.

But that does not preclude us from changing the rules on cost sharing going forward. Why don't climbers get insurance to cover their sport? Perhaps things like handheld GPS units would be required by the insurance companies. Perhaps those who shouldn't be attempting the climbs might not make them in the 1st place. If they were to know that help would not be forthcoming in the future, would they accept the the financial or life risk that their sport might demand? Privatizing the service and paying those costs by the users seems like a legitimate expectation for the taxpayer.

Obviously, it is tough to take a cold-hearted approach to this question....but millions spent by the public searching for mountain climbers means millions not available to fund programs that would benefit millions in their daily lives. I certainly have no problems transferring these costs to the tiny portion of society that benefits from this service.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. The climbers pay their taxes...

Applied, paid, and recieved the proper climbing permits from the forest service.

The searchers are volunteers.

I see no reason why they should pay any more than the Kims or anybody else who needs rescue.

[ecstatic]

103. Yes.What if everyone behaved the same way as these mountaineers?

Answering that question will give you the right answer this poll.

It is an issue of fairness. If it would not be feasible for everyone to act in this manner, then nobody should get to--at least not without the understanding of full personal responsibility.

We will search for you--we will do everything we can to find you--even risk our lives, but you damn sure will pay the bill. Volunteers are putting their own lives at risk now. They have families too! Do not abuse and take for granted their kindness and selflessness.

If healthcare isn't free for all, then why should mountain top rescues by the Air Force and National Guard be free for a select few?

[Redneck Socialist]

112. Whaaaa?

I guess I shouldn't drive my car to work tomorrow I might get in an accident and risk someone else's life then.

[Zookeeper]

118. Exactly.

They risked their lives for fun.

When you drive your car to work, it's not for fun.
When your house catches on fire, it's (probably) not because you were looking for fun.
If you're riding a motorcycle for fun, you are required to have insurance.
If your child is swimming, it should be in a place with a lifeguard nearby for a quick rescue.

Why are mountaineers exempt from common sense guidelines? Yes, mountaineers pay taxes too, but they pay taxes for the same services that the rest of do, like fire and police protection. Generally, we are not expecting to cover the cost of rescuing people who choose to do extremely risky things for fun.

If we weren't wasting our tax dollars in Iraq or on subsidizing big business, it wouldn't be an issue to me. Unfortunately, the reality is that only a small portion of our tax dollars is allowed to go to anything that benefits society. And until that changes, we are left to squabble over how that money is allocated. If anyone has an idea for a quick fix, feel free to share.

[piedmont]

124. Better not go hiking in the woods for fun..

Or swimming at the beach.
Or driving your car anywhere for anything but work and root canals.

Sack-cloth, ashes, and lamentations all around!

[Zookeeper]

132. Does it cost two million dollars to rescue a swimmer...

at the beach? Does it cost two million dollars to rescue a driver that gets in an accident on the way to the beach? If you go hiking far into the backcountry, you probably have a compass or GPS with you. There are fun activities that carry a normal amount of risk and there are fun activities that are highly risky.

I'm not advocating abandoning people that go mountain climbing in the winter, but it would be nice if they would be responsible enough to buy insurance to cover whatever costs are incurred in SAR.

BTW, my post was in response to people trying to equate mountain climbing with driving a car to work.

[piedmont]

133. 130 people killed on Mt Hood in100 yrs. 40,000 permits issued per year.

That's a low level of risk. Lower per mile than cars.

Those permits cost money. Those climbers pay taxes associated with buying supplies for their climbs. They put more money into the economy than they take out.


source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/30/national/main510637.shtml



Does it cost two million dollars to rescue a driver that gets in an accident on the way to the beach?
Dunno. Ask the people who looked for James Kim. He was going to the beach.

[Zookeeper]

134. OK, if the revenue generated by permits...

covers the costs, which is a version of insurance, then there's no problem.

Not to argue, but I thought the Kim family was on a trip to visit relatives. I don't follow that kind of story very closely and didn't even realize what a media blitz is underway regarding the missing mountaineers until I turned CNN on this evening. It looked like nothing else was going on in the world today.

If people are looking for human interest stories, there are two little boys still missing from an Indian reservation in northern MN. I didn't see that mentioned on CNN today.

[piedmont]

135. The Kims were going to a resort...

at Gold Beach, Oregon, which was not directly on their way home. They had been visiting relatives in Portland.

And I do agree that the cable news media tends to get fixated on these stories to an unhealthy extreme.

[MattSh]

136. Uh, you're kidding, right?

Swimming at the beach is a high risk activity? That IS what we're talking about here. NOT normal, everyday activities, like swimming and driving a car. Besides, most places I've been REQUIRE drivers to have insurance. Or maybe we should all be allowed to cancel that policy since we already pay for the police and rescue workers.

Seriously, you must be joking.....

But then looking at all the other non-sequiters here, my guess is that you're not.....

[piedmont]

158. see post 133

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2940544&mesg_id=2944820

[VOX]

106. Should Republicans be held responsible for putting BushCo in power for 8 years?

Just a thought-question, albeit extreme, tinkering with this idea. They *knowingly* voted for these candidates, and put them in power. Where can the bill for the deficit and war-costs (not to mention all the resources lost to corruption) be sent? Oh, and a couple of thousand families would like their sons and daughters back.

As for rescue, should Democrats save right-wingers from themselves by voting for common-sense, moderate-and-liberal candidates? :shrug:

[Zookeeper]

121. Great idea, KrazyKat....

It totally works for me.

And if they can't pay the bill, how about them losing their right to vote for the next several elections?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. I'll Be Short And Sweet: I Find The Sentiment To Be An Absolutely Deplorable One.

[L A Woman]

117. me too...

but sadly not surprising.

[L A Woman]

116. i keep forgetting that our taxes are for lining the pockets of lobbyists, etc.

sometimes i get confused and think they are for public safety, search & rescue and that type of thing. :-)

what a thing to discuss when they haven't even found the other two hikers.

when the ambulance picks up ed schultz after he has his inevitable heart attack, i hope they make his wife pay the bill before the ambulance leaves for the hospital. priorities!

he's such a fucking idiot.

[Zookeeper]

122. You don't see the difference between someone...

needing an ambulance because of a heart attack and needing a massive search and rescue operation because you were engaging in an extremely risky hobby (for fun)?

The reality is that our money IS going to line the pockets of lobbyists, war profiteers and big corporations. We do have to make choices about what's left. I'm not happy about that, either. :-(

[L A Woman]

164. no, i don't...

being as obese as Ed Schultz is just as preventable. We should reward fat gluttons who shove shit down their throats until they weigh 800 pounds - but people who seek adventure and experience nature should be punished? Please. I just want to make sure Ed's wife has to pay up before the ambulance leaves his house, since he sees fit to have this stupid discussion before all the bodies have even been found.

Ed Schultz is a piece of shit.

[Mme. Defarge]

123. Yes.

If people who must, or should, declare bankruptcy because of a catastrophic illness and no health insurance, and who subsequently can't get a job because of a bad credit rating, then individuals who voluntarily engage in high-risk behaviors should be expected to pay for costly rescue efforts.

[bobbolink]

131. "Big Ed" also castigated poor NOLA residents for not leaving.

Never mind that many didn't have cars, and those who did most likely didn't have money to get gas because it was the end of the month.

Even if they had a car with a full tank, where would they go? They certainly didn't have $$$ for hotel rooms!

Suppose "Big Ed" feels badly that many of those people he castigated ended up killing themselves?

Highly doubtful.

What a "Big Heart" has "Big Ed"

[BoneDaddy]

137. If climbers should be responsible

then so should blow hard talk show hosts.

[gulfcoastliberal]

138. Of course they must pay. Emergency evacuation insurance is pretty cheap.

Only morans would go mountaineering w/o trip insurance for evacuation/injury expenses.

[sandnsea]

153. Doesn't usually pay S&R

Here's a comparison for evac insurance. It is aimed at people who travel overseas and need to be brought back home for medical care. Some foreign countries really won't help you if you can't provide either the cash or the insurance. But these policies don't pay for the search and rescue operations, the one that does only covers $10,000 which is a pittance of what these rescues generally cost. People who are touting their insurance are either misled themselves, known on DU as 'stupid', or misleading others.

http://www.bootsnall.com/travel-insurance/emergency-evacuation-insurance.html

[donheld]

139. Anyone who voted yes

:grr:

[Bridget Burke]

141. I voted NO

Apparently many DU'ers believe that any activity but sitting on your fat ass in front of a PC is much too exotic.

[Little Star]

142. It's a hobby for cripes sake!!!!

A dangerous one at that. They should buy insurance and a personal GPS system. They put many others in danger for the love of their hobby and need to be more responsible for the monetary cost as well as the possible cost human life. Many people find themselves making a wrong decision in every day life(like Mr. Kim from CNet)others, or like Katrina victims who were just to poor to have another choice, I do not fault them one iota. Now, people like different hobbies, for instance GOLF and you pay up the yazoo. It's not exactly fair that many people who LOVE golf cannot AFFORD to play. So, when it comes to hobby choices its not about what you love it's about what you can afford. These climbers could have bought insurance, which is available and they also could have been wearing a PERSONAL GPS. It is selfish to indulge in a hobby/sport and others have to carry the burden of monetary loss or possible loss of life to look for you.

[Ganja Ninja]

143. It's kind of a moot point.

I can't imagine how much it's costing to search for these guys but I also can't imagine the average person being able to pay for it. I rather see them restrict access during certain times of the year and perhaps provide shelters for emergencies. For what this is costing you could probably build more than a few.

[Maestro]

145. Loaded statement or poll

Of course they should be responsible but at this point I have seen nothing to see that these guys were irresponsible. Mr. James was hurt with an arm injury and the other two left him in a snow cave to find help. The weather I believe was unexpected up there. I fail to see how three experienced climbers have been irresponsible in their quest for the summit. Rescue efforts are expensive but I would expect my fellow citizens to look for me as well. Also, here in the Dallas area, there is charity fund collecting to help pay for the efforts.

[Annces]

147. I think our society does pay for a lot of things for people

who already have money, the ones who make the rules and reap the benefits. People go into highly dangerous sports or recreations knowing of the dangers, they should have insurance.

[Norquist Nemesis]

149. How do we know they won't be?

I've seen quite a bit about this including some discussions on the cables. So far, there hasn't been anything to say it's all "free". :shrug: Plus, as someone mentioned above, they pay taxes.

[LSK]

152. NO

Why the fuck pay taxes if we are not going to have things like search and rescue???

What kind of liberal puts conditions and a pricetag on saving someones life???

[mainegreen]

154. Um, that's the whole *POINT* of government and taxes.

Anyone whose telling you different is trying to sell something to the government or has been confused by the arguments of those selling things to the government. The climbers already paid. It's called taxes.

And if too many people need rescue in an area close off public access.

[judaspriestess]

157. here is what Oregon law stipulates

Oregon law does not require victims to pay for rescue efforts unless they were negligent and failed to take basic steps to keep themselves safe, Kleinbaum said. And in those cases, costs are limited to $500 per person. Other costs are absorbed by the state and local agencies involved.

[Egalitariat]

160. People who cause wrecks during rush hour should pay for all

the lost productivity of all the people who are sitting in park waiting on the wreck scene to be cleared.

One traffic accident in Atlanta on 285 would cost more than the entire Mt. Hood search and rescue operation.

I'm for it!