Rescue Insurance??

[cabinetman]

A skydiver gets hung up in trees and needs to be rescued. Authorities figure the cost to be $10,000. Maybe rescue insurance would be in order...if there is such a thing.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/26392053/detail.html

.

[Armini]

There is. Some jurisdictions require it for things like backcountry skiing or ski mountaineering, where rescue situations are not that uncommon because of mountain weather changes. In those areas, they are not making a judgment as to negligence or anything of the sort, it is just a straight user fee.

But skydiving would not be an activity that would make as much sense for it - things do not normally go wrong in the same way, and when they do the opportunity to rescue is not likely to be there.

[Shep]

I can understand a need for insurance for backbacking, or being out remotely if you need major assistance and funds are used for search and rescue, gas, airplane, etc. What I don't understand is how it can cost 10k to get a guy out of a tree.

[sweensdv]

I can understand a need for insurance for backbacking, or being out remotely if you need major assistance and funds are used for search and rescue, gas, airplane, etc. What I don't understand is how it can cost 10k to get a guy out of a tree.

Easy, it's figured in government dollars.

[herb fellows]

Why the handsaw alone, GSA approved of course, was over $1,000.
Nothing but the best for our citizens!

[Mr__Bill]

If you look at the number of men, the equipment used and the cost of the training it seems that 10K is rather inexpensive. Imagine being in the hospital and had 21 doctors worked on you. Or, you had 21 lawyers working for 4 hours.

Insurance seems like a good idea, you are doing what the general public does not do and when it goes wrong it should be at your expense.

Bill

[vaking]

Ditto to what Bill said. Skydiving is not a necessity - it is an entertainment. In order to engage in it the user needs access to airplane and other assistance. In other words skydiving is an entertainment for which user pays in advance to participate. Rescue is the responsibility of either the user or whoever facilitated the jump and accepted payment for it. So between the user and service provider (airport where that took place or company that provided the plane) - somebody will have to pay the bill.The debate whether need for rescue was result of user error or equipment malfunction or insufficient training or whatever else is immaterial. Fire department is right demanding payment and it is between airport/plane company and user to fight out who covers it. I would say government should collect from whoever is the easiest to collect and let other parties sue each other if necessary. The user who engages into skydiving most likely has enough money and/or insurance to cover $10K.
As for the cost - the article says that 21 firefighters needed 4 hours to get the guy to safetly - that is over 100 man-hours. Rescue team is highly trained and specialized and probably needs some special equipment. In this setting $10K is less than $100/hour of very skilled labor. I do not think price is high.

[os1kne]

Insurance seems like a good idea, you are doing what the general public does not do and when it goes wrong it should be at your expense.Bill

I agree with this. $10K may or may not be a fair price, but it certainly isn't a cost that should be covered by the general public.

[thrytis]

Is the rescue insurance discussion that much different than the health insurance discussion? How do you require insurance? Do you handle people hanging 75' up a tree who do not have insurance any differently than a person bleeding in an emergency room without a insurance? It could be argued that skydiving is no more unnecessary than many things people do which impacts their health. This quickly gets into a political discussion.

Probably an easier way to recover costs for rescues like this is to build fees on activities through e.g. sky diving companies or backcounty/park permits.

[Shep]

My issue with the cost is this: Since the firefighters are on the government dime, their cost is fixed, meaning if they sit in the station they still get paid the same, correct? Or, do firefighters get a "emergency" bonus when they go out and do actual work? I do see that certain variable expenses would be incurred; gas, water, etc.

While I do agree that 100/man hour seems reasonable, I don't agree that citizens should have to pay double for services. By this I mean we pay through taxes for the firefighters, why would we then need to buy insurance to cover their fixed cost if we need their help? I do think that a rescue insurance would be usefull to pay for say a search plane, gas, overtime, etc. where needed.

[Capstone]

Public safety is the reason they exist. They operate on tax dollars. We've paid them to train, we've paid for their equipment, and we've paid their salaries. IMO we should not have to pay additional out of pocket for the very thing they are in place to do.

The majority of the public doesn't operate dangerous equipment in their garages. If I cut my hand off should I get a bill from the FD for their response?

[Bruce Cohen]

Seriously,

Who would waste good money to get you back, sorry, just couldn't resist.

You're now allowed to make one snide comment about my broken ankle.

Bruce

[Sam Conder]

My issue with the cost is this: Since the firefighters are on the government dime, their cost is fixed, meaning if they sit in the station they still get paid the same, correct? Or, do firefighters get a "emergency" bonus when they go out and do actual work?

According to the National Fire Protection Association, "about 72 percent of fire companies were staffed entirely by volunteers in 2005 -- 823,350 of an estimated 1,136,650 firefighters."

I signed up as a volunteer firefighter about a year and a half ago. I figured if I could help wash the fire truck after the "real firefighters" got back from a run, then I would be serving my community well. I thought that there were a couple of full timers and then they filled in with volunteers. Wrong... our department is 100% volunteer.

I was also surprised to find out that I get $30 for every run I make. This is not compensation, it is reimbursement for expenses. Not only do I have to respond in my own vehicle thus incurring fuel costs and wear and tear, I am also required by law to have lights and a siren on my vehicle. The $30 per run pays these expenses.

With all that being said... I agree that it is just part of the job when we respond to Search & Rescue operations. They are by far the costliest responses for us, but that is why we are here. I do however now realize why fire departments will bill schools, businesses, hospitals, etc. for excessive false alarms. Once the tone goes out that there is an active alarm, we MUST respond, even if we are told that it was a false alarm. We have a nursing home here that had a malfunctioning alarm and neglected to have it repaired. We responded to the location 12 times over 2 days. With 8 firefighters responding at $30 per, along with the fuel and wear and tear on our engine, it was a drain on our budget.

Just the $0.02 from a first responder's perspective...

[LCHIEN]

its an interesting discussion.
If we assess and require insurance based upon risk, will we then have more categories than smoker, non smoker for insurance? like sportsman, hunter, woodworker, skydiver, frequent driver-long distance commuter?

Ultimately we could have lower insurance rates for people who did not participate in anything - stay at home behind locked doors and never venture out taking risks on the street people. Because if you went to the movies you are at risk of auto accident on the way to/from the theater, heart disease from the popcorn, possible theater fire, mass murderers, robbery carjacking etc.

[cabinetman]

If we assess and require insurance based upon risk, will we then have more categories than smoker, non smoker for insurance? like sportsman, hunter, woodworker, skydiver, frequent driver-long distance commuter?

Ultimately we could have lower insurance rates for people who did not participate in anything - stay at home behind locked doors and never venture out taking risks on the street people.

Some insurance rates are based on other than smoker/non smoker. Miles driven, primary/secondary driver, location of parked car, etc. In my area, which may or may not be different than other areas, where one lives will affect the rates of auto insurance, and homeowners insurance.

It does make sense that people who don't go out and lock themselves in are a lesser risk.

.