When wealthy adventurers take huge risks, who should foot the bill for rescue attempts?

[dalton99a]

https://apnews.com/article/titanic-tourist-sub-passengers-cost-ee2a6358b36e48326b3977090fd9311b

When wealthy adventurers take huge risks, who should foot the bill for rescue attempts?
By ADAM GELLER and WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS

When millionaire Steve Fossett’s plane went missing over the Nevada range in 2007, the swashbuckling adventurer had already been the subject of two prior emergency rescue operations thousands of miles apart.

And that prompted a prickly question: After a sweeping search for the wealthy risktaker ended, who should foot the bill?

In recent days, the massive hunt for a submersible vehicle lost during a north Atlantic descent to explore the wreckage of the Titanic has refocused attention on that conundrum. And with rescuers and the public fixated first on saving and then on mourning those aboard, it has again made for uneasy conversation. ...

While the Coast Guard’s cost for the mission is likely to run into the millions of dollars, it is generally prohibited by federal law from collecting reimbursement related to any search or rescue service, said Stephen Koerting, a U.S. attorney in Maine who specializes in maritime law.

But that does not resolve the larger issue of whether wealthy travelers or companies should bear responsibility to the public and governments for exposing themselves to such risk.

...

[bucolic_frolic]

1. We pay for ambulances

Some pay for fire trucks. We pay taxes for police.

[Biophilic]

2. Not us. If they or their families have billions of dollars they can pay the bill.

I'm seriously tired of supporting million and billionaires. Especially those who are willing to take stupendous risks whether that is with their money or their lives. Over being a billionaire nursery.

[Duppers]

24. EXACTLY❗

TY.

[Jilly_in_VA]

3. When it's the wealthy doing it

It's my opinion that they should put up a bond--insurance, if you will--in the event of their loss on their "adventure. They can damn well afford it, if they can afford the adventure in the first place. That would go into a genera.l fund that could help pay for unfortunate ordinary folks who simply get lost or injured, some of whom might pay a very nominal fee to hike certain trails or undertake certain climbs or whatever. For those who just get lost or hurt through no fault of their own, no charge will be incurred.

[gopiscrap]

4. I agree

[dalton99a]

9. +1. Poor people don't own planes and yachts

They have to work and pay taxes

[gopiscrap]

5. Fuck 'em

let them die, the world is better off with less billionaires

[dchill]

10. They did die. Now we're going to foot the bill...

...to find out what happened.

[JanMichael]

6. The invisible hand of the market?

[werdna]

8. !!!!!!!!!!

[brooklynite]

7. And if you're not wealthy?

Am I to understand that working class people only engage in dull, sedate activities?

[Jilly_in_VA]

20. See my post above

I made a couple of suggestions. Many national parks now charge a very modest fee for hiking certain trails, for instance. And I mean modest, anywhere from $5-20. Is that too much for you?

[sarisataka]

22. No one has yet answered the question

Of what wealth level cutoffs will the be. I can just picture a SOS to the Coast Guard with the reply being "can you upload your latest tax return to see if you qualify for a reduced rate rescue "

Or perhaps "please give us the number of from your insurance card for what level of rescue you qualify to receive." It may suck if your SAR insurance is only valid within 100 miles of the coast but the storm you are in has pushed you out to 120 miles.

[onecaliberal]

11. They should be insured and the estate should foot the bill.

[barbaraann]

12. Good question--especially since so many wealthy people avoid paying their fair share of taxes. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

13. We have to be insured for driving and owning a home. In case something wrong happens.

Why the hell shouldn't they? The company and the riders in that submersible should have had insurance and resources to handle emergencies.

[Farmer-Rick]

14. We should expand regulations

So that they are not outside governmental jurisdiction and they must operate safely, no matter how rich they are.

In the end we are going to try and save a life. It's how humans are. So, they must put in all possible safety protocols. No choice to follow safety protocols or not. It's the sensible thing to do.

[sarisataka]

15. What about average income people

who do stupid things and need rescue? They get it for free? You don't have to be rich to get into a bad situation that you never should have gone into. Who gets to decide if you have to pay to be rescued?

I recall some years ago skiers needed to be rescued by a helicopter which then hit the mountain and crashed. Should they have to pay for the helicopter?

[tazkcmo]

16. In some places you are held liable for your rescue

An example would be in San Antonio Texas where if you cross a barricade put in place due to possible flash flooding and get stuck and need rescuing then you are liable for the cost of that rescue. When we are in an accident and require an ambulance we pay for the ambulance.

[GPV]

17. NH tells you to get SAR insurance, I think.

[malaise]

18. Especially since these wealthy government hating scumbags

refuse to pay their taxes and hate regulations

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. I want to live in a society where everyone gets rescued regardless of ability to pay.

Most of the work the rescue work the Coast Guard does is private boaters and commercial fishing vessels that bring your King Crab and Cod.

Think of these high profile cases as training exercise for when someone you deem worthy gets lost at sea.

[Zeitghost]

21. Same here

I'm also skeptical when the price of these rescue missions is quoted. We pay for the equipment and manpower already and in many cases they are operating on a daily basis already.

[2naSalit]

23. Their estate(s) should pay the...

Public services back for all expenses incurred.