|
majid_sabet
Aug 8, 2007, 6:07 PM
Post #1 of 23
(6360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
This is the biggest BS I have ever heard MS ----------------------------------------------------------
In reply to: The Fire Department says he will be charged for the rescue because he is not a Golden resident. http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/...STY&pageId=3.2.1
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 8, 2007, 7:19 PM
Post #3 of 23
(6231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I agree. Just got back from an accident on I-90 (go figure with the rally going on) and I forgot to ask them where their from. Next time I'll ask first , and if their from Golden do they they have insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Aug 8, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #4 of 23
(6230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: The Fire Department says he will be charged for the rescue because he is not a Golden resident. So in this case. Would being an American Alpine Club member make you covered? They have rescue insurance as part of membership.
|
|
|
|
|
timh
Aug 8, 2007, 7:47 PM
Post #5 of 23
(6187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2006
Posts: 24
|
In reply to: In reply to:The Fire Department says he will be charged for the rescue because he is not a Golden resident. Could it be that they're actually refering to an ambulance transport fee and not something related to the actual techical part of the rescue?
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 8, 2007, 7:54 PM
Post #6 of 23
(6177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
. . .and your basing your option on the quality reporting of Fox News? With all those links, er accident reports I would have assumed you'd know which new agencies are trustworthy. On a side note; the fire department probably is going to make the climber pay for his rescue. This is common practice for incidents where the rescued person is from out of state and/ or doesn’t have insurance with good coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 10, 2007, 11:39 PM
Post #7 of 23
(5959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Charge them double
|
|
|
|
|
james481
Aug 14, 2007, 7:35 PM
Post #8 of 23
(5834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 201
|
I think how this actually works varies from state to state (and possibly county to county). I know that here in New Mexico, the state covers the entire cost of wilderness rescue (most personnel are volunteer), unless it is determined that the party needing rescue was negligent in some way. In other words, if you're climbing a pitch in the Sandias and a rock comes tumbling out of nowhere and clocks you in the noggin, we will come find you and airlift you out free of charge. However, if you go up to the mountains with inadequate equipment and poor preparation, get yourself lost and scared and call daddy to come to the rescue (happens more than you think), then daddy panics and calls out a full on search for you, it will cost you between 8-10K just to get on a helicopter, along with probably another 10K of expenses the state will charge you for the volunteer time and gas. In other words, if you do something really stupid and end up getting a helicopter rescue for your troubles, you can expect a $20,000 bill from the state waiting for you when you get home from the hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Aug 29, 2007, 1:35 AM
Post #9 of 23
(5590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
Amen, brother Majid. There has to be a better way to fund the Golden Fire Dept. If only the lawmakers would get on it.
majid_sabet wrote: This is the biggest BS I have ever heard MS ---------------------------------------------------------- In reply to: The Fire Department says he will be charged for the rescue because he is not a Golden resident. http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/...STY&pageId=3.2.1
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Aug 29, 2007, 2:42 AM
Post #10 of 23
(5522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
So I do think it's lame that they are going to try and make this guy pay for his "rescue" but how much could it cost to get somebody out of clear creek canyon? It's one of the most easily accessed places I've climbed.
|
|
|
|
|
bmustaf
Aug 29, 2007, 3:21 AM
Post #11 of 23
(5500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 12
|
How is this BS? Do you really think emergency services are free or even low cost? Just like anything else, no, they're not (PS, I'm a firefighter and rescue technician). Yeah, the spokesman/PIO sounds like an idiot when he talks, but that's a red herring. Let's consider the facts first so we can get past the dogmatic response we all have that we're all entitled to a free rescue (yeah, I'd be pissed off if I had pay for a rescue...but I'll talk about that later). 1) Fire Departments are funded by tax monies, tax monies from the municipality they protect. Even then, for certain calls the Fire Department/Authority (Golden FD is a city department, but many are their own special districts, which is a separate governmental entity) reserves EVERY right to charge for either nuisance calls or ones that are beyond the capacity of the services they provide inside their coverage area*. This is a good segue and becomes important when you consider #2: 2) The area where this rescue took place lies OUTSIDE the coverage area of the Golden Fire Department. They were brought in by CSP (State Patrol) as a mutual aid response (and I will note there is no mutual aid agreement in place for the area in question that would govern a fee structure or gratis response). In this case they entirely allowed to charge, and in some municipalities REQUIRED to charge. 3) Ultimately, responsibility for Search and Rescue in Colorado (state-wide) lies with the Sheriff's department. They also reserve a right to bill for services rendered based on reasonable estimates of resources either diverted or called in beyond normal staffing levels. 4) Medical transport and treatment is not free. Very few exceptions to this exist. He was treated by an ALS crew. 5) Do your research -- Chief Bales of the GFD has this to say about billing folks: "Billing is not an issue," Bales said. "Collection is an issue. Do we really go after them? Of course not. Nobody is going to lose their home because they can’t pay a bill." 6) Get over it -- we are not entitled to free search and rescue. Although the idea really appeals to me, where do you propose they pay the salaries of the rescuers and equipment from? When this engine company, medic unit, and bat chief left their district other engines had to move up, units were paged out, guys get pulled in out of OT. This doesn't even begin to address the very fact that they responded outside their jurisdiction to rescue a person who wasn't even a resident of their jurisdiction (and even then, that's a tenuous case at best to absolve him of responsibility of payment). Bottom line here, there was material resource allocation that took place outside the aegis of GFD's jurisdiction, they are allowed cost recovery on that. Is this a good idea for tourism? Is it the "friendly" thing to do? Surely it isn't. I won't defend that behavior, but the idea that cost recovery for services falling outside the aegis of a department's response area and profile is "BS" is, well, "BS"! Anyway, since I'm big on personal responsibility how about this: before you run out and do something "inherently dangerous", be properly insured. Medical, SAR, and Life! Buy a COSAR card -- they're $12, they're not a 100% policy but they work almost as well. You are obliged to buy COSAR when you get a game license in the state of CO. I can't remember the last time someone who had a COSAR card was charged for ANYTHING, even in these circumstances. Still not happy? This guy has a good case to make CSP or Clear Creek County/Jefferson County Sheriff eat the cost because they didn't call in Alpine Rescue and called GFD. I am surprised by the attitude of so many folks here who want, nay, expect something for nothing (obligat *By BEYOND the capacity I mean the FD being called for something that is not inside the bounds of their duty to respond. They won't charge for fighting a structure fire, but if you call to get a cat out of a tree that may not be a free service (although it always is good PR if it is!)
(This post was edited by bmustaf on Aug 29, 2007, 3:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Sep 5, 2007, 9:11 AM
Post #12 of 23
(5377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
this would be a clear case of discrimination IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Sep 5, 2007, 11:44 AM
Post #13 of 23
(5354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
overlord wrote: this would be a clear case of discrimination IMHO. Discriminating against whom, and on what grounds? Gender? Race? Sexual orientation? Age?
|
|
|
|
|
reverse_dyno
Sep 5, 2007, 12:24 PM
Post #14 of 23
(5333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Posts: 69
|
Your right, rescue costs money. The problem is that it is usually not clear whether you will be charged for a rescue or not in the US. It depends on where you are, the circumstances of the incident, and what kind of insurance you have. Either it should always be free in all states, or you should have to pay in all states. If you have to pay, a national insurance program can be created that covers the cost of the rescue. In Switzerland and the EU, you normally have to pay for the rescue. That is why everyone buys one of the standard rescue insurances like REGA ($25 a year for full coverage of rescue costs) http://www.rega.ch/...spx?pid=040100000000.
|
|
|
|
|
bmustaf
Sep 5, 2007, 1:52 PM
Post #15 of 23
(5277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 12
|
That's an interesting point, but it really runs antithetical to the way in which US government is set up. The idea of Federalism (the 12th Amendment to the constitution) specifically delegates authority from the federal government to the states in ALL areas not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. Further, state governments delegate a great amount of authority down to the the local level (city, county, etc). Policing, Fire Protection, Search and Rescue, emergency services in general all are local services, and while they receiving funding, support, etc from state & federal programs, they are administered and governed autonomously on a local basis in the United States. Wise or misguided, good or bad, the very tenets of American government mean you can't build consistency in this across all 50 states. Now, for things like drinking ages, etc there are things such as interstate compacts, etc (actually, when the federal government wants all states to be consistent on matters they can't mandate they find a tricky way to create a financial incentive SO great they just can't refuse, like refusing highway funding for any state whose drinking age isn't 21 years, voila, we have a consistent drinking age in the US now). And national insurance :), if it were a private company that'd fly in the US, but we can't even get our Healthcare system fixed :). Sounds weird and obtuse, I know...it's not really that bad (the federalist system).
reverse_dyno wrote: Your right, rescue costs money. The problem is that it is usually not clear whether you will be charged for a rescue or not in the US. It depends on where you are, the circumstances of the incident, and what kind of insurance you have. Either it should always be free in all states, or you should have to pay in all states. If you have to pay, a national insurance program can be created that covers the cost of the rescue. In Switzerland and the EU, you normally have to pay for the rescue. That is why everyone buys one of the standard rescue insurances like REGA ($25 a year for full coverage of rescue costs) http://www.rega.ch/...spx?pid=040100000000.
(This post was edited by bmustaf on Sep 5, 2007, 3:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Sep 6, 2007, 7:14 AM
Post #16 of 23
(5174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
reno wrote: overlord wrote: this would be a clear case of discrimination IMHO. Discriminating against whom, and on what grounds? Gender? Race? Sexual orientation? Age? on grounds of 'not being in the community'. i mean, that was just stupid, yes, they are doing a public service and yes, the residents pay for it, but the guy who had the accident also pays for the rescue services in hes are, so when someone from that backwards little town has an accident in the rescuees part of the woods, it can be free of charge. the only way of justifying such legislation i see is if none of the residends ever leaves their municipality. or if all other municipalities start charging their rescues
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 6, 2007, 7:20 AM
Post #17 of 23
(5172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
overlord wrote: reno wrote: overlord wrote: this would be a clear case of discrimination IMHO. Discriminating against whom, and on what grounds? Gender? Race? Sexual orientation? Age? on grounds of 'not being in the community'. i mean, that was just stupid, yes, they are doing a public service and yes, the residents pay for it, but the guy who had the accident also pays for the rescue services in hes are, so when someone from that backwards little town has an accident in the rescuees part of the woods, it can be free of charge. the only way of justifying such legislation i see is if none of the residends ever leaves their municipality. or if all other municipalities start charging their rescues Actually, He can easily win it in court and pay nothing for rescue. He just need to know few things for his argument.
|
|
|
|
|
pyramid
Sep 8, 2007, 3:02 PM
Post #18 of 23
(5070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 51
|
In CO you can get a Hikers insurance for cheap which would cover all rescue. It also comes on the fishing and hunting liscenses, its $0.25 extra. Doesn't get much easier than that, thats why I but a new fishing liscense every Jan. plus I like to fish.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Sep 8, 2007, 4:16 PM
Post #19 of 23
(5042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
pyramid wrote: In CO you can get a Hikers insurance for cheap which would cover all rescue. It also comes on the fishing and hunting liscenses, its $0.25 extra. Doesn't get much easier than that, thats why I but a new fishing liscense every Jan. plus I like to fish. So, if your climbing and need a rescue, your fishing license covers you? Thats great. Maybe next you'll need a climbing license and it will cover you if you need rescued while fishing. spelling edit
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Sep 8, 2007, 4:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bmustaf
Sep 8, 2007, 5:25 PM
Post #20 of 23
(5005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 12
|
That's patently false...the only way a court would issue an injunction against the billing is if it was illegal (e.g. structurally prohibited by statute). This is NOT the case. Sure, it seems draconian and "unfair", but it's NOT illegal. The courts enforce the laws on the books, not what some of us think "should" be the law. Perhaps if he hired an extremely high-powered attorney that was well-connected the municipality simply couldn't defend their ground because it would cost them less to forgive the bill than deal with the flurry of motions, discovery, and depositions, but it's sure a lot more difficult than he simply has to "know a few things for his argument". But the bottom line is: there is nothing illegal about charging for a rescue in this case. What is with this sense of entitlement?
majid_sabet wrote: overlord wrote: reno wrote: overlord wrote: this would be a clear case of discrimination IMHO. Discriminating against whom, and on what grounds? Gender? Race? Sexual orientation? Age? on grounds of 'not being in the community'. i mean, that was just stupid, yes, they are doing a public service and yes, the residents pay for it, but the guy who had the accident also pays for the rescue services in hes are, so when someone from that backwards little town has an accident in the rescuees part of the woods, it can be free of charge. the only way of justifying such legislation i see is if none of the residends ever leaves their municipality. or if all other municipalities start charging their rescues Actually, He can easily win it in court and pay nothing for rescue. He just need to know few things for his argument.
(This post was edited by bmustaf on Sep 8, 2007, 5:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
skinner
Sep 8, 2007, 11:06 PM
Post #21 of 23
(4932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 1747
|
I'm curious now, if one were a non-resident like this guy, and refused rescue, but efforts had be made in locating & making contact with him, would/could he still be billed.. successfully? (I'm assuming of course they *know* who he is, contacted by a relative or friend for being overdue)
pyramid wrote: In CO you can get a Hikers insurance for cheap which would cover all rescue. It also comes on the fishing and hunting liscenses, its $0.25 extra. Doesn't get much easier than that, thats why I but a new fishing liscense every Jan. plus I like to fish. Wow $0.25, that sounds like a great deal, errr how much is a fishing license in CO?
|
|
|
|
|
bmustaf
Sep 9, 2007, 3:16 AM
Post #22 of 23
(4853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 12
|
Not really sure about that...but if it's a refusal people are generally not billed, but since the circumstances in this case are different I'm not sure. Sounds to me like GFD was only called after they KNEW they had a technical rescue on their hands (e.g. CSP made contact somehow). Don't know if the build up of resources would have happened. But look at the big Fossett search going on now...even if they don't find him I doubt the state is picking up that whole tab (even if they find him and he says I'm walking home...). Not the same thing, but an extreme example. Fishing licenses in CO are $35, extra $10 gets you a second rod stamp. You can buy COSAR insurance (well, not 100% insurance, but close) for $12 for 3 yrs, too.
skinner wrote: I'm curious now, if one were a non-resident like this guy, and refused rescue, but efforts had be made in locating & making contact with him, would/could he still be billed.. successfully? (I'm assuming of course they *know* who he is, contacted by a relative or friend for being overdue) pyramid wrote: In CO you can get a Hikers insurance for cheap which would cover all rescue. It also comes on the fishing and hunting liscenses, its $0.25 extra. Doesn't get much easier than that, thats why I but a new fishing liscense every Jan. plus I like to fish. Wow $0.25, that sounds like a great deal, errr how much is a fishing license in CO?
|
|
|
|
|
bmustaf
Sep 17, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #23 of 23
(4683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 12
|
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5700288,00.html Looks like the parties involved reached an agreement out of court/collections.
|
|
|
|
|
|