Lost American Sailor Located
 

A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government, are
asked to pay for the screwup.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government, are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:

And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government, are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.


SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

Who knows yet?

The rescue is from the Chilean navy search plane, Not the USCG.

The Chilean govt. accountants might be tallying up his bill .

Lost American Sailor Located
 

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government, are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.

Paying taxes for emergency services needed to respond to fires and
accidents is one thing. Having to pay for emergency services to rescue
those who purposely put their lives in danger for the sake of a thrill
is another.

I am with Bill on this one. This thrill seeking sailor should have to
pay back any expenses incurred with his rescue.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"JimH" wrote in message
ps.com...

I am with Bill on this one. This thrill seeking sailor should have to
pay back any expenses incurred with his rescue.


We get a lot of that here. Every nut who decides to sail, row, swim or
balloon to England passes in our coastal waters or air space.
Some years it seems like our Seach & Rescue service is saving someone on a
weekly basis.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.


Most fire/rescue and ambulance services will charge the person using
these services.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Fuego

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Jeff Burke wrote:
How long after this sailor abandons his boat can someone else claim it as
salvage? Assuming that the rescuers didn't take it in tow.
Immediately

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Which one is more at fault? The average pleasure boater whose boat
malfunctions because of bad maintenance or because he didn't properly
fill his tank before a long trip? Or the round-the-world sailor with a
well maintained, seaworthy, storm-enduring boat that just got unlucky
in a storm that was heavier than was to be expected?

Risto

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Varis wrote:
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Which one is more at fault? The average pleasure boater whose boat
malfunctions because of bad maintenance or because he didn't properly
fill his tank before a long trip? Or the round-the-world sailor with a
well maintained, seaworthy, storm-enduring boat that just got unlucky
in a storm that was heavier than was to be expected?

Risto

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is
not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

Lost American Sailor Located
 

JimH wrote:

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is

I doubt this guy gets a free tow for his boat...

not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

Probably not. At least, hopefully not :-)

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

You're going a bit easy on the details here :-) How many beauforts was
that particular storm? Did you have a chance to inspect his boat
personally?

How about all the boats that sail around the world or whereever on the
oceans for months, without any need for emergency help?

Risto

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Varis wrote:
JimH wrote:

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is

I doubt this guy gets a free tow for his boat...

not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

Probably not. At least, hopefully not :-)

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

You're going a bit easy on the details here :-) How many beauforts was
that particular storm? Did you have a chance to inspect his boat
personally?

How about all the boats that sail around the world or whereever on the
oceans for months, without any need for emergency help?

Risto

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Varis wrote:
JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto


If the trip is dangerous and is being made to fulfill some thrill
seeker desire then I agree.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

JimH wrote:
Varis wrote:
JimH wrote:

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is

I doubt this guy gets a free tow for his boat...

not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

Probably not. At least, hopefully not :-)

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

You're going a bit easy on the details here :-) How many beauforts was
that particular storm? Did you have a chance to inspect his boat
personally?

How about all the boats that sail around the world or whereever on the
oceans for months, without any need for emergency help?

Risto

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Yeah, if he'd have just layed on his couch thinking of boating instead
of actually doing it he would have been much better off. Of course,
being a couch potato, he's putting himself in harms way via a heart
attack waiting to happen.....

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


There are "levels" of harms way.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.
2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

etc... etc...

It just happens that most folks plan on something happening and get
insurance to protect themselves. It doesn't mean that the get out of the
jamb for free it just means that they paid into a pool of money (insurance
company) that expects to pay out every once in a while. Did he have
insurance? I think he did. He had a sat phone and a super EPIRB. He also
had a provisioned life raft and a provisioned boat for a round the world
sail. It sounds to me that he was ready for mishap.

Will he get a bill - I would think so.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Rick wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


There are "levels" of harms way.

Yes, and driving a car on many highways is statistic wise, very
dangerous.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

D.Duck wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.



There are "levels" of harms way.



THere is one constant, kevin will go out of his way to argue, and end up
making an ass of himself.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

SPAM Avenger wrote:
On 7 Jan 2007 08:17:41 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

Basskisser The Broad's view of the world is that if she says it's so,
it's so. Anything outside her experience is invalid. She learned it
from Al Gore.

Let's just say, for instance, that there is a local quarry which is
off limits, a hazard, fenced and monitored. Some kids break in, one
falls and two are stranded while climbing the cliffs.

In her view, taxes pay for the rescue even if it's a budget buster - I
mean, that's why you pay taxes.

Now watch for the "PROVE THAT I SAID" statement. It will give proof
to the following:

You can't make a logical argument with somebody who view of the world
is inherently illogical.

Permanent PMS - very unfortunate.

What a childish little twit you are.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

SPAM Avenger wrote:

On 7 Jan 2007 08:17:41 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.


Basskisser The Broad's view of the world is that if she says it's so,
it's so. Anything outside her experience is invalid. She learned it
from Al Gore.

Let's just say, for instance, that there is a local quarry which is
off limits, a hazard, fenced and monitored. Some kids break in, one
falls and two are stranded while climbing the cliffs.

In her view, taxes pay for the rescue even if it's a budget buster - I
mean, that's why you pay taxes.

Now watch for the "PROVE THAT I SAID" statement. It will give proof
to the following:

You can't make a logical argument with somebody who view of the world
is inherently illogical.

Permanent PMS - very unfortunate.

Kevin's taxes don't pay for ems service except for the municipality of
thatt he has his double wide parked.....so unless he never travels more
than a few miles from the double wide, it is a meaningless point (but
then all of his "points" are meaningless)

Lost American Sailor Located
 

basskisser wrote:
Rick wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and
end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your
furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some
sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around
Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world
record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a
little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.
and it appears that many agencies are charging for their SAR services:

Utah is not the only place where lost hikers can be billed for rescues.
Several states, including Idaho, Hawaii and New Hampshire, allow
counties to issue bills. Some ski resorts in Oregon, Washington and
Colorado have also charged for rescues.

The National Park Service does not bill for rescues but has considered
it. The agency spent $3 million on rescue costs last year.

State Sen. John Valentine, a Republican who also is a lieutenant for
Utah County Search and Rescue, sponsored a bill in 1997 that created a
fund to reimburse counties for some search-and-rescue costs.

In fiscal year 2003, counties received more than $153,000 from the fund,
but that represented just a fraction of their expenses. Each of Utah's
29 counties calculates its search-and-rescue budget differently, but
costs commonly range from $60,000 to $100,000. Just one difficult search
can shatter the best financial plans.

Collection laws have drawn protest from critics who view rescue
operations as a tax-funded service, just like firefighting.

"It's almost an entitlement," said Golike of the National Search and
Rescue Association.

Green, the Grand County sheriff's sergeant, said sending a bill to a
family who lost a loved one is a "big gray area" that makes him
uncomfortable, "even though it has been done."

He recalled a search for a missing 13-year-old boy that used airplanes
and helicopters, all-terrain vehicles and at least 50 volunteers. The
effort ended four days later when searchers found the boy's body.

The boy's family received a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.

"They paid as much as they could," Green said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...searches_x.htm

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.

Detroit. Enough said.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"Varis" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto


And most cases the boater has to pay for the tow, etc.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

basskisser wrote:
Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.
Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.

Detroit. Enough said.

In your county and city, you have to pay for both EMS and Fire Services.
enough said.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.
Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.

Detroit. Enough said.

In your county and city, you have to pay for both EMS and Fire Services.
enough said.

Taxes only.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.
Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.
EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.
EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.
EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.
Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.
Detroit. Enough said.

In your county and city, you have to pay for both EMS and Fire Services.
enough said.

Taxes only.

Guess again.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
[trimmed]
Collection laws have drawn protest from critics who view rescue
operations as a tax-funded service, just like firefighting.

"It's almost an entitlement," said Golike of the National Search and
Rescue Association.

Green, the Grand County sheriff's sergeant, said sending a bill to a
family who lost a loved one is a "big gray area" that makes him
uncomfortable, "even though it has been done."

This is usually a hot topic around here after a big rescue
effort. There are always a few who gripe about their small
taxpayer contribution to such efforts while the volunteers
who man these operations are generally dead set against any
attempt to charge those being rescued.

I think the following article makes some good points.

http://tinyurl.com/yadsck

An excerpt:

The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches
for the climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the
Southern Oregon mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen.
Mike Caldwell said it costs $2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60
Black Hawk, including fuel and maintenance, and $7,500 to
fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood, the Black Hawks
flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets
billed for that, Caldwell said.

"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those
hours," he said. "Those flight hours would have been flown
anyway in training. Instead we are able to get our people in
a real-world environment."

-rick-

Lost American Sailor Located
 

I think the following article makes some good points.

http://tinyurl.com/yadsck

An excerpt:

The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches for the
climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the Southern Oregon
mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell said it costs
$2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60 Black Hawk, including fuel and maintenance,
and $7,500 to fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood, the Black Hawks
flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets billed for that,
Caldwell said.

"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those hours," he said.
"Those flight hours would have been flown anyway in training. Instead we
are able to get our people in a real-world environment."


Which is why common sense should always prevail, and why less laws are a
good thing, rather than more laws. If they were going to burn those hours
anyway, this should be factored in.

I'm for billing adventure seekers for rescues- I'm also for using common
sense in doing so.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message
. net...

I think the following article makes some good points.

http://tinyurl.com/yadsck

An excerpt:

The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches for the
climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the Southern Oregon
mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell said it costs
$2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60 Black Hawk, including fuel and maintenance,
and $7,500 to fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood, the Black
Hawks flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets billed for
that, Caldwell said.

"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those hours," he said.
"Those flight hours would have been flown anyway in training. Instead we
are able to get our people in a real-world environment."


Which is why common sense should always prevail, and why less laws are a
good thing, rather than more laws. If they were going to burn those hours
anyway, this should be factored in.

I'm for billing adventure seekers for rescues- I'm also for using common
sense in doing so.


Why not have the climbers - hikers buy an insurance policy before the climb.
I am sure that thousands climb and hike without problems so the relative
cost should be quite low. And if they rescue and don't charge it would be
even lower.

Somehow rescuers should not have to go into their own pocket because someone
wants to climb in December and has limited vacation to wait for good
weather.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.
Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.
EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.
EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.
EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.
Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.
Detroit. Enough said.

In your county and city, you have to pay for both EMS and Fire Services.
enough said.

Taxes only.

Guess again.

I don't have to guess. I live here, I've used both services, and I know
how OUR system works.

Lost American Sailor Located
 

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message
. net...

I think the following article makes some good points.

http://tinyurl.com/yadsck

An excerpt:

The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches for the
climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the Southern Oregon
mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell said it costs
$2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60 Black Hawk, including fuel and
maintenance, and $7,500 to fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood,
the Black Hawks flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets
billed for that, Caldwell said.

"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those hours," he said.
"Those flight hours would have been flown anyway in training. Instead we
are able to get our people in a real-world environment."


Which is why common sense should always prevail, and why less laws are a
good thing, rather than more laws. If they were going to burn those hours
anyway, this should be factored in.

I'm for billing adventure seekers for rescues- I'm also for using common
sense in doing so.


Why not have the climbers - hikers buy an insurance policy before the
climb. I am sure that thousands climb and hike without problems so the
relative cost should be quite low. And if they rescue and don't charge it
would be even lower.

Somehow rescuers should not have to go into their own pocket because
someone wants to climb in December and has limited vacation to wait for
good weather.


Agreed 100%. Personal responsibility.