-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
"yuppie 911" article on fox news
- Thread starter smith945
- Start date
strangenh
NES Member
They are usually charged for the cost of the rescue in NH.
Every state's going to treat it differently. Comes a point where you know the legislature is going to be making comments about having to decide whether to "discourage" people from calling 911 vs. having the actual emergency services able to respond to real emergencies.
NH opted for the route of providing emergency services but treating the costs imposed it as a matter of personal responsibility. I believe there have even been cases where hikers were told to deal with a sprain rather than be choppered off. What a shock.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Every state's going to treat it differently. Comes a point where you know the legislature is going to be making comments about having to decide whether to "discourage" people from calling 911 vs. having the actual emergency services able to respond to real emergencies.
NH opted for the route of providing emergency services but treating the costs imposed it as a matter of personal responsibility. I believe there have even been cases where hikers were told to deal with a sprain rather than be choppered off. What a shock.
Stuff like that really does suck for the most part for the SAR teams. A friend of mine is on the SAR team in Seattle (King County?) and has to deal with idiots all the time. Between yuppies doing a hike up a mountain with nothing but a water bottle and jackasses that push a panic button every time they see an animal in the woods it really puts a strain on resources. For every one person it saves they have a bunch more that is someone wanted a guided tour.
They are usually charged for the cost of the rescue in NH.
Every state's going to treat it differently. Comes a point where you know the legislature is going to be making comments about having to decide whether to "discourage" people from calling 911 vs. having the actual emergency services able to respond to real emergencies.
NH opted for the route of providing emergency services but treating the costs imposed it as a matter of personal responsibility. I believe there have even been cases where hikers were told to deal with a sprain rather than be choppered off. What a shock.
I like this policy. If you're legitimatly in need of rescue, you'll pay the cost happily.
Where's that story about the 17yo Eagle Scout from NH? Twisted his ankle on the trail and took a little extra time getting out. He felt he was in no danger, but a rescue was mounted and he got stuck with a >20K tab. IIRC.
Twigg
NES Member
This really pisses me off.
Oh no. God forbid the people who pay the most taxes ("yuppies") actually use a little government service. I have just as much contempt for these weenies as the next guy, but let's be clear about one thing: money is not the issue. I would bet, with confidence, that people using these satellite emergency devices pay more in taxes than they receive from all levels of government.
This is no different than those stories of how irritating it is to check on false alarms for home security systems in nice neighborhoods. The answer is always to make "them" pay for the call. Here's a deal: I would be thrilled to pay a la cart for government service. Just don't make me pay taxes. Does anybody think that real government freeloaders would (or could) make the same claim?
Oh no. God forbid the people who pay the most taxes ("yuppies") actually use a little government service. I have just as much contempt for these weenies as the next guy, but let's be clear about one thing: money is not the issue. I would bet, with confidence, that people using these satellite emergency devices pay more in taxes than they receive from all levels of government.
This is no different than those stories of how irritating it is to check on false alarms for home security systems in nice neighborhoods. The answer is always to make "them" pay for the call. Here's a deal: I would be thrilled to pay a la cart for government service. Just don't make me pay taxes. Does anybody think that real government freeloaders would (or could) make the same claim?
Using the service != abusing the service. If someone is in need then they should get the help the require. If they are getting a full-blown rescue effort called out because they got sprayed by a skunk then they are taking away time, effort, and energy from a system designed to save others in actual need . Even as a kid we learned not to pull the fire alarms or make crank emergency calls because it diverts limited resources from actual needs. Just because some yuppie wanker pays more taxes does not give them the right to screw over others because they don't have the 'nads to take care of themselves.
Buying a "yuppie life-alert" as a replacement for learning the basics of how to take care of themselves in the wilderness does not entitle them to abuse an emergency system any more than owning a cell phone entitles them to call a cop to help cross a busy street.
That's the trouble with government. If these services were paid for by users like any free market service, then nobody would care whether they have "actual need". But we use taxes. I am not defending these folks, but to single them out as egregious abuse is absurd. How about the folks who get domestic disturbance calls on a weekly basis, pay zero in taxes, and receive welfare, food stamps, and WIC payments? How is all of that not "abuse" of the services. But some "yuppie" hiker pays tens or hundreds of thousands per year in taxes, hits the panic button (stupidly, I'll admit) on a hike, and here comes the outrage. Who's really screwing the system here? The "yuppie" or that welfare recipient? How about we charge the welfare crowd a "fee" for all of the free stuff they get on my dime.
Did you read the whole article, because they hit the button three times not once. The rescue team should have taken them out on the first call, they are both to blame.
Yes, I read it. The point of the article was that people use the devices excessively and go places they otherwise would avoid because of them. All of that is fair criticism.
However, that they are somehow a net burden to society is far from obvious, and suggesting that they necessarily should pay for the excessive use is where I object. My guess is that, on net, the likely "abusers" of these systems pay more in taxes than they receive in service from their government. And this, in my view, is indicative of where we are heading. Taxes on the few of us that shoulder the bulk of the tax burden will be rising. We will pay for others' medical care, retirement, child care, meals, housing, and much more. In return, the few services we receive from government will be increasingly under tax pressure as well.
These nitwit hikers are not exactly poster children for my point, I admit. But the knee-jerk notion that we should just charge them for the cost of their actions is inconsistent with almost all other government expense, much of which is directed at those who pay no taxes at all. And if we are serious about fee for service government, I am all for it. But let's apply it evenly to all recipients of government services.
Hiltonizer
Banned
I think you are absolutely right in regards to the folks utilizing these services are most likely the ones getting the biggest shaft in terms of taxes v. benefits... however..
I think using that argument as justification sets a bad precedent. It's that type of mentality that causes increased government over all. If everyone used everything they legally could, we'd see even greater levels of taxation and general nanny-statism.
Lests not forget, a majority of the folks using this service probably aren't even from NH, therefore are not really owed anything by NH state government.
Making it known that if you hit that panic button, it better be for a good reason because you're going to pay, will put less strain on the resources themselves... and the NH tax payers who just go about their business.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,399
- Likes
- 8,239
Frankly, when I first saw "The Spot" device, I thought it was horrible. The 'help' button is just too easy to press. Sort of an OnStar for Yuppies in the woods.
My 'ideal' design would be one that has buttons for the non-emergency features like check-ins, tests, etc, but the "Save My Butt" activation should be a form of rip cord. One time activation, save your life, and you really meant to pull it. To reset, you have to return the device to the Mfr along with your story. (So everyone knows what kind of jerk you are if that was the case.)
SOP for responding to such automated devices should be "Extract and Process". No change of mind. You pulled it, your trip is over, enjoy the ride. I'd also love to see some kind of law regarding frivolous calling for help, but setting the line would be quite hard as situations vary.
Lastly, registration of the device should require some form of Credit Card or Bond placed on the account. Without it, no "Save My Butt" service. SAR then has the option of collecting reimbursement for rescues. Companies that offer the service could include an insurance in the annual service fee in lieu of the CC or Bond, but something needs to back up the service.
The devices have a place and are an amazing use of technology, but as with anything, unless some teeth is put on the response, people are going to abuse it. Unlike your routine 911 call, this doesn't just waste the time of some dispatcher on the phone, but sends people out using costly resources and into potentially dangerous situations. Heck just operating a helicopter is hazardous.
When I went hiking, I always left my plan, anticipated return time and specific orders that I be given 48 hours AFTER my planned return before the calvary is called. Sure, that time might have cost me my life, but I knew when to expect help and prepared to last that long if needed. Thankfully I never was more than a few hours late. I don't know if I'd even use one of these devices, but I probably would have picked one up because I was a serious gear geek. I'd get a new pot just because it was a few grams lighter than the one I had. Lost count of the number of pack stoves I owned over the years. (^_^) Seriously, part of the 'fun' of getting away from 'civilization' was being on your own able to handle anything. To me, activating one of these would be a real depressing moment.
My 'ideal' design would be one that has buttons for the non-emergency features like check-ins, tests, etc, but the "Save My Butt" activation should be a form of rip cord. One time activation, save your life, and you really meant to pull it. To reset, you have to return the device to the Mfr along with your story. (So everyone knows what kind of jerk you are if that was the case.)
SOP for responding to such automated devices should be "Extract and Process". No change of mind. You pulled it, your trip is over, enjoy the ride. I'd also love to see some kind of law regarding frivolous calling for help, but setting the line would be quite hard as situations vary.
Lastly, registration of the device should require some form of Credit Card or Bond placed on the account. Without it, no "Save My Butt" service. SAR then has the option of collecting reimbursement for rescues. Companies that offer the service could include an insurance in the annual service fee in lieu of the CC or Bond, but something needs to back up the service.
The devices have a place and are an amazing use of technology, but as with anything, unless some teeth is put on the response, people are going to abuse it. Unlike your routine 911 call, this doesn't just waste the time of some dispatcher on the phone, but sends people out using costly resources and into potentially dangerous situations. Heck just operating a helicopter is hazardous.
When I went hiking, I always left my plan, anticipated return time and specific orders that I be given 48 hours AFTER my planned return before the calvary is called. Sure, that time might have cost me my life, but I knew when to expect help and prepared to last that long if needed. Thankfully I never was more than a few hours late. I don't know if I'd even use one of these devices, but I probably would have picked one up because I was a serious gear geek. I'd get a new pot just because it was a few grams lighter than the one I had. Lost count of the number of pack stoves I owned over the years. (^_^) Seriously, part of the 'fun' of getting away from 'civilization' was being on your own able to handle anything. To me, activating one of these would be a real depressing moment.
You should have to pay up front or no rescue cash or credit please![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
Its funny you say that...When I was an MP in Germany a few years back, that's exactly what some of the German ambulance services were doing to American soldiers/family members. Tricare kept giving them the run around in payment so eventually it became, unless you're dying right there, they wanted a credit card as a backup payment method before they'd transport.
Similar threads
