• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who should pay for rescues? Poll

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who should pay for the rescues?

  • Taxpayers

  • The people who get lost or if they died or cannot be found the families.

Results are only viewable after voting.
FoBoT said:
if we all gotta pay everyones healthcare, then paying for everyones search&rescue seems ok
Click to expand...

wait, how are tax payers paying for everyones health care? I am paying out the crap hole for my own through work, unless you're talking about that medicare shit.

honestly, this S&R should be rolled into insurance somehow. But I am actually OK with taxpayers paying for S&R operations. If it was me out there, wherever, I would hate to have to think "shit, I didn't get the S&R part of my insurance, I better just off myself now, so I don't have to pay the bill".
 
sygyzy said:
This was covered recently in a Gizmodo or Engadget post and one commenter really caught my eye. He said that his department (fire, S&R, county, whatever) experimented with making the victim's pay the cost. Usually it was a lot, like tens of thousands. Well what this resulted in was people were aware of how much a rescue cost and even if they were in a bad situation (even ones that were not their fault, like an unexpected storm or they fell off a cliff), they wouldn't call because it was so expensive. So you had people dying. So he said despite the lame calls and weekend warriors getting in over your head, he was convinced that you can't charge people.
Click to expand...


I read that too... I believe it was in response to the outrage over taxpayer dollars going to the rescue of the balloon boy hoax. Not really sure how I feel about it... part of me thinks it makes a bit of sense but another part of me says this is just Darwin at work. If people refuse to call to get rescue just to save money over their lives, well then that's their own damn fault.
 
No one. You want to climb Mt Hood then have at it with the understanding that you are on your own so you better know what you are doing and be prepared for the unexpected and not expect a rescue if you screw up.
 
We spend so much money on emergency care and rescue operations. Think of balloon boy. I would have been like, "Sorry, should have watched your kid."
 
Assuming it's decided that the lost individuals must pay, if I get lost and they launch a rescue effort, do I have the option to decline? If I decline, do I have to pay for the efforts up until I decline?

Why did they buy a rescue helicopter, train individuals to do the job and then decide they need reimbursement? Seems like that should have been discussed prior to the expenditures.
 
skace said:
Have you tried acne.org and followed that process to the letter?
Click to expand...

I did. I even got the shit he sells but it ended up backfiring and after doing it for a month then stopping for a week my face started puffing up and getting rashes and shit from the acne stuff so I had to stop... Fucking shit. >_< I liked the cleanser a lot, but the BP stuff just makes my skin flare up because I might be allergic or something apparently?
 
TridenT said:
I did. I even got the shit he sells but it ended up backfiring and after doing it for a month then stopping for a week my face started puffing up and getting rashes and shit from the acne stuff so I had to stop... Fucking shit. >_< I liked the cleanser a lot, but the BP stuff just makes my skin flare up because I might be allergic or something apparently?
Click to expand...

You don't do this stuff for a month. You do it for a lifetime. It's probably not allergies, you are drying your face out and it is going to react to that initially, I actually had reddish skin for probably... 6 months.

I only use the stuff once a day though instead of twice and I never use it at the same time as moisturizer. But that's about all the advice I can offer you.

What I do know is that as long as you try things and then stop them, you will never find something that works. I would be using something, anything every day and then if you find something better you can make a switch (although you have to take it slow).
 
skace said:
You don't do this stuff for a month. You do it for a lifetime. It's probably not allergies, you are drying your face out and it is going to react to that initially, I actually had reddish skin for probably... 6 months.

I only use the stuff once a day though instead of twice and I never use it at the same time as moisturizer. But that's about all the advice I can offer you.

What I do know is that as long as you try things and then stop them, you will never find something that works. I would be using something, anything every day and then if you find something better you can make a switch (although you have to take it slow).
Click to expand...

No, like my face got puffy and extremely itchy and broke out in a rash.... The people on the forums told me to stop using it because I am probably having an allergic reaction. :/ It happened whenever I decided to use it again after I stopped for that one week. I've tried it like 3 or 4 times and it happens every time... I can't use it. It's seriously unbearable pain and itchiness. :thumbsdown:
 
I think the rescuers should be volunteers. If someone wants to volunteer, great. If not, sucks to be the person.
 
KK said:
I think the rescuers should be volunteers. If someone wants to volunteer, great. If not, sucks to be the person.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but who pays for the supplies. You need certain things to perform the rescue most of the time, not just a few pairs of human hands.

KT
 
KeithTalent said:
The only people I have a problem with are the ones that go out of bounds and take extra risks, then get their dumbasses lost or hurt and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.




KT
Click to expand...

When did this thread become about banks and Wall Street? :biggrin:
 
techs said:
And the guys from the Deadliest Catch. Should they pay the Coast Guard for saving their butts?
Click to expand...

JulesMaximus said:
How about the car crash on the freeway, should the guy who has to be cut out of his SUV have to pay for the paramedic service?
Click to expand...

My point was asking is there a difference between an individual who engages in risky behaviour for fun and a business that engages in risky behaviour for profit.
 
techs said:
My point was asking is there a difference between an individual who engages in risky behaviour for fun and a business that engages in risky behaviour for profit.
Click to expand...

IMO, no. People that make an active choice to put themselves in danger without being forced to do so need to take the responsibility for their actions. It's easier to prove for a business, the boat crew obviously knows it's a risky job.

Drunk drivers should pay for their own rescue, as should anyone doing reckless or negligent things while driving. This could be texting while driving, ridiculous speed (10 mph over isn't crazy but if somebody gets in an accident going 90 in a 60 I think they're pretty negligent) or anything like that where it is obvious that the person put themself in a dangerous and completely preventable situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top