CG and Navy to the rescue

[Pima]

The reason I asked about that position is from the position that as taxpayers I doubt we will be paying just for the rescue, but also all of their healthcare bills too. Do you really think that they had health insurance?

If you say they should not be billed for the rescue because otherwise others will wait longer to be rescued and a higher risk, than the same can be said when we absorb that million dollar hospital bill because of this trip or at least be said because under the ACA everyone can be insured supposedly at a low cost. Hence my question.

I was not trying to compare apples to oranges, I was trying see if LITS felt this way all around from a cost perspective, or just from the perspective of risking lives of those performing the rescue.

If they had no health insurance, it is just even more proof of how irresponsible they are as adults and parents.

As the OP this thread was created just as much about the military rescuing the family as it was about the parents recklessness and the costs that we as taxpayers will pay for every bill that they may skate out of due to the system. I was not diverting the thread if you go back and read my post, a lot had to do with the parents and the costs.

The parents have come out and now are defending their decision, and in a way throwing a pity party because they lost their home, I.e. their boat since it appears that the boat was abandoned at sea. I bet they had insurance on that.loss.

Again, this is not their first failed attempt. It is their second within two years. I am willing to bet they will go for a third and a fourth or a fifth until one of two things occur. They sucssefully accomplish their goal and make news again....the nanana moment to the world, or the g forbid news with a loss of life. I don't remember the man's name, but they now remind me of the guy who wanted to circumnavigate the world in a hot air balloon only to go down and die close to success. He tried over and over again because that was his dream. He left behind a family that loved him very much. How much do you want to bet they wish they could have talked him out of it. Maybe an insane bill from a failed attempt would have stopped him and he could be alive today.

 

[deepdraft1]

Prudent mariners DO get in trouble now and then, but they have the training and expertise to avoid many of the issues less experienced folks run into.

BINGO!!!

Good seamanship is recovering from an incident at sea. Great seamanship is avoiding an incident at sea. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Freda'sMom]

3. If you're at home, and you think you're having a heart attack, but you don't want to pay, out of pocket, for an emergency team. So you hold off. You wait to see if you just have a cramp, or heart burn, or you're just nervous. And the longer you wait, the worse it gets. The Coast Guard does not provide SAR for free. It has budget close to $10 billion. A portion of that budget supports SAR. 100% of that budget is paid for by us, the taxpayers. The Coast Guard (officers and enlisted) would much rather pluck 10 folks from a boat 200 miles out that's taking on water than search for 10 folks 200 miles out in 40 degree water and 20 ft. seas. If it's something they could deal with on their own, or something a private service can do, sure. But if there's a threat to life.... why cloud someone's judgement (and keep in mind, in an emergency, you're not always thinking straight) with trying to decide how much money his/her life is worth?

In most states a helo ride to the shock trauma center is billed to the patient as well, but I heard Maryland has a fleet of state police helos that will take you free of charge, paid for by their high taxes.

 

[Pima]

We were billed for a 5 mile ambulance ride after our DD was bitten by a copperhead snake, no fault of her own, she was walking across our front yard at night and it attacked her. It was 750 bucks...150 per mile. It was a serious bite that required 5 vials of anti-venom approved by the CDC. We were informed that due to the high amount needed she had less than 25% chance of not going into shock or having a heart attack, She was 15.

Did I ponder the cost of the ambulance when we dialed 911, especially since the hospital was only 5 miles away and we could have driven her just as fast? NO.

We were responsible adults and called 911 so that if medically something bad happened she would have trained people with medical equipment unlike us, her parents,

To me, it appears those that served time on the water agree that sailing to New Zealand on a 36 foot sailboat with two children under the age of 3 was irresponsible. Leave the children out of it for a second.

For sailors with experience what would you statistically say their chances were to make it to New Zealand and back with no issues? Was it truly doable on the size of this vessel? I know there are people that do it, but what size of boat do they usually travel in?

I vaguely recall a story about a teenager trying to do it, and failed, just don't know the size their boat was for their trip.

We went out on our friends 32 foot boat this past summer for the day on the Occoquan, and I can tell you that there would be no way I would feel safe on the open waters with no land in site on a boat that small. I literally would go crazy being that confined. I couldn't imagine it if there were 4 of us, and dealing with diapers, plus spending every minute having eyes on both of them, especially one just starting to walk.
~~~~ Throw in the fact that doing this probably was going to delay both DDs gross and fine motor skills development along with social skills. How do you learn to run on a 36 ft boat? Riding a trike is not just about the fun, it is part of gross motor skill development, along with hopping and skipping. The 3 yr old should have been in preschool so they learned all of that this year instead of having memories of fear....sister sick, parents stressed, strangers jumping onto their boat from the sky, a huge boat coming near theirs and whisked away, a helo ride and visiting her sister in the hospital with tubes sticking out of her body,

Can you imagine how cramped that boat was for days with the para rescuers also on the boat?

 

[AF6872]

Marine Rescue out of Cherry Point used to provide free medevac and LIFE STAR for all of east North Carolina. They may still do. Chopper Commander told me it was what they do from major accidents to SAR.

 

[Jcleppe]

What about towing? I've seen the CG tow quite a few disabled vessels, do they get a bill for that?

A good example of the Towing issue.

Yaquina Bay Small Boat Station, there is a large fishing population in Newport Or. We had this issue when I was in the CG back in the Dark Ages and it's only getting worse with higher fuel costs. Fishing boats, most commercial but even some charters, would head out with a pre-planned amount of fuel, they would fish until the fuel ran out and then call the CG to report they were adrift in need of rescue. These fisherman would save a large amount on fuel costs. The CG would have meetings with the Local fisherman, threaten to start charging for the tow, those meetings would get very heated and the local support for the CG Station would drop quickly, those stationed there would feel that lack of support around town quickly, it was never a good situation.

When I was on the OR Coast a couple years ago we stopped by the Yaquina Station, the subject came up and they said they have started charging if they can prove they did not manage their fuel properly, though this is harder then it sounds. It's still an issue today.

I understand that these people pay taxes but a free ride back to port is pushing the limits in my mind.

As far as this couple, I doubt they started their trip with the intention of needing a rescue, they prepared for a trip they felt they could handle given their experience. This was not the only small sailboat to embark on a trip like this, many do the same trip and have no issue.
Unlike the fishermen that leave knowing they will want a tow home, I'm sure this couple planned on never needing a rescue. Glad to hear they were all safe.

 

[parentalunit2]

PIMA – LMAO at your rant against paying for this family’s healthcare. You are a dependent of a military retiree, are you not? Would you like me to begin the rant about how I have to pay for your family’s super sweet healthcare package, while I can barely afford to cover my own family? Please honey, just stop. Let’s not even go there.

 

[raimius]

PIMA – LMAO at your rant against paying for this family’s healthcare. You are a dependent of a military retiree, are you not? Would you like me to begin the rant about how I have to pay for your family’s super sweet healthcare package, while I can barely afford to cover my own family? Please honey, just stop. Let’s not even go there.

 

[parentalunit2]

Raimius,

I love it - you are too funny! OK, I’m a little calmer now than when I posted that. But still, we all pay into a system that we may not always agree on how the big pot of money is spent. I just found it hysterically funny that someone who has not been in the ‘real world’ of health insurance for a few decades, would have a problem with paying out benefits for someone else. When in fact, her tax dollars have been paying out for many families like these since she started paying taxes.

Mission accomplished I guess. She just wanted to stir the pot and trash this family that she doesn’t even know.

 

[kinnem]

I'm going to ignore the financial aspects of this. I just want to say, who in the world takes such young children out on a potentially risky voyage like this? And they had to know it was potentially risky, including illness. I can understand people wanting to sail around the world. I can understand people wanting to take their kids on such a voyage. I can't understand doing it this young. When they're older and can perhaps carry their weight a bit, and more importantly remember and learn from such a voyage, yeah. But not this young. This was plain stupid from every angle.

 

[aglages]

You are a dependent of a military retiree, are you not? Would you like me to begin the rant about how I have to pay for your family’s super sweet healthcare package, while I can barely afford to cover my own family?

Would you have preferred to pay her husband MORE money for his military service instead of paying for a "super sweet healthcare package".....which he (and she) earned?

 

[raimius]

Yeah, part of the deal is that when you agree to follow all lawful orders for 20+ years, you'll get some nice benefits in the out years.

I know a couple people who won't be around to get them.

 

[JMS]

So, getting back on topic, ... I'm wondering what the imperative is for the Navy/others to work on the search for the lost airliner off Perth. Here is a case, unlike the family in the sailboat, where there are no people to rescue, very few american lives involved, and no involvement with US territory/jurisdiction and seems to be even more costly. Yet, we are not discussing who may be paying for this.

 

[aglages]

Yet, we are not discussing who may be paying for this.

The following was posted today with regards to USAFA prioritizing spending. I bolded two sections. Perhaps it is applicable in this discussion as well.

In my opinion, instead of the military trying to "Do more with less"; maybe they ought to try DOING LESS. Meaning, don't cut back in the ancillary programs, benefits, classes, etc. that make the quality of the men and women of the military the best there is. Instead; cut back in the future manning. Enforce payback by nations who promised to pay for our help. Our initial involvement in the middle east spoke of the countries we were helping; paying for us to be there. How did that work out???

An entire book could be written on how the military can be more efficient without affecting the military members or how the military prepares their members to be such a well rounded leaders and followers. Too much politics and bureaucracy and not enough common sense and actual caring for our military men and women.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

So, getting back on topic, ... I'm wondering what the imperative is for the Navy/others to work on the search for the lost airliner off Perth. Here is a case, unlike the family in the sailboat, where there are no people to rescue, very few american lives involved, and no involvement with US territory/jurisdiction and seems to be even more costly. Yet, we are not discussing who may be paying for this.

I have wondered the same, and here are some thoughts about reasons:

1. The tradition of maritime aid that tpg mentioned in a prior post;

2. The U.S. is the world leader in aviation safety and in investigation of aviation accidents. The U.S. economy is heavily dependent upon aviation in many respects. Any time there is an airline accident we have an institutional interest in learning the cause.

3. The U.S. is a world leader in the anti-terrorism effort and was the victim of a terrorism attack involving civilian planes. If this is terror-related the U.S. has an institutional interest in investigating methods/vulnerabilities, etc.

4. For the military, including the Navy's P-3 fleet, a "live" search can be an excellent training exercise. If the ships are under way and deployed already, the additional cost might be marginal and the additional training seen as good value if this is looked at in purely financial terms. (Which I would not think is the case, see 1 - 3 above.)

 

[JMS]

Each of your replies are thoughtful and much along the lines I was thinking. I suppose then that the marginal/incremental cost of rescuing the sailboat family (however stupid their actions may be) is pretty low, and provided those involved with valuable real-life training.
Of course, if Fox 'News' wanted to tee off on this subject they would go all in with the prorata cost based on the entire DOD and CG budgets. Very different numbers!

 

[AcademyFriend1]

Each of your replies are thoughtful and much along the lines I was thinking. I suppose then that the marginal/incremental cost of rescuing the sailboat family (however stupid their actions may be) is pretty low, and provided those involved with valuable real-life training.
Of course, if Fox 'News' wanted to tee off on this subject they would go all in with the prorata cost based on the entire DOD and CG budgets. Very different numbers!

True. Even the New York Times is joining the line to highlight the bad judgment of the parents: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/2-tots-a-sailboat-and-a-storm-over-parenting.html?ref=us

With 1000+ comments on the NYTimes article, it makes the interest on this thread look minute by comparison!

As LITS has said, professionals in "rescue professions" which would include maritime rescuers (but also fire departments) generally do not come down in favor of the "send them a bill" approach for fear it will disincentivize people to ask for help, with a higher chance of fatalities down the road (including for rescuers who may be called into an even more hazardous situations). There are some exceptions, but that's the general rule. (You may be a dummy who smoked in bed after drinking and dropped your lighted cigarette to start the fire, but the fire department doesn't send you a bill after they douse the smoking ruins of your humble abode.)

My own view is that, with the firestorm of public opinion, this particular couple may not be paying in money but they are not "getting off free."

 

[JMS]

Well, in my experience the EMS folks (paid and volunteer) and less commonly, fire departments are indeed sending bills. They may not like doing it, but they are. And if you happen to need paramedics for that ambulance ride, they are billed out, too. About 10 yrs ago here, great-grandma was taken to the hospital and it was billed out at $1,200.
Now, I am aware that the whole fee/billing thing is almost entirely driven by the fact that many Ins Cos and Medicare cover these costs if they are billed pursuant to a properly established fee. Thus towns adopt fee ordinances and bill everyone, then waive the fees for those who are not covered.
This last detail.. the availability of a third party to pick up the cost is the crux of the matter, and that does not appear to be the case with sailboat family.

 

[Roughrider]

I'm going to ignore the financial aspects of this. I just want to say, who in the world takes such young children out on a potentially risky voyage like this? And they had to know it was potentially risky, including illness. I can understand people wanting to sail around the world. I can understand people wanting to take their kids on such a voyage. I can't understand doing it this young. When they're older and can perhaps carry their weight a bit, and more importantly remember and learn from such a voyage, yeah. But not this young. This was plain stupid from every angle.

As I understand it, the last time the couple attempted this sail (and had to turn back) the woman was several months pregnant.

It occurs to me, as I detour around flash flood areas, observing vehicles stalled out in barricaded high water crossings, passing signs saying "TURN AROUND, DON'T DROWN" (because only a fool would ignore a police barricade with flashing lights and a warning that rhymes, I guess), that we're fighting a losing battle against neutral selection.