Fire/EMS/ERs/disasters, etc.

[Vrede too]

Just when you begin to think that RepuQs could not possibly be more disrespectful, whiny and stupid . . .

GOP Lawmaker Finds Way To Blame Lost Submersible On ‘Epic Failure Of Leadership’
“It begs the question: Could this have been resolved differently if leadership had just acted sooner?" Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX) said.

[neoplacebo]

Just when you begin to think that RepuQs could not possibly be more disrespectful, whiny and stupid . . .

GOP Lawmaker Finds Way To Blame Lost Submersible On ‘Epic Failure Of Leadership’
“It begs the question: Could this have been resolved differently if leadership had just acted sooner?" Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX) said.

Jesus walking to shore after his jet ski sank! How in the hell can the GQP find any fault in anything about the little submarine? As an experimental vehicle, it was subject to NO regulation of any kind. They should be clamoring for more of them to be built and squawking "freedom."

P.S. They also hate banking regulations except when one of those regulations shows Hunter Biden making lots of money.

[O Really]

Hmmm, let's see. A privately owned operation, in international water closest to Newfoundland, subject to no US regulation blows up and sinks and somehow it's Biden's fault? Yeah, right. That's the ticket.

[Vrede too]

Hmmm, let's see. A privately owned operation, in international water closest to Newfoundland, subject to no US regulation blows up and sinks and somehow it's Biden's fault? Yeah, right. That's the ticket.

Even if there is some duty to rescue fat cats, these adventure tourists died in a catastrophic implosion the moment that contact was lost and our Navy knew it. Crenshaw is a moron to suggest otherwise, and it's extremely offensive of him to exploit the dead for partisan gain. Shame.

[Vrede too]

Jesus walking to shore after his jet ski sank! How in the hell can the GQP find any fault in anything about the little submarine? As an experimental vehicle, it was subject to NO regulation of any kind. They should be clamoring for more of them to be built and squawking "freedom."

P.S. They also hate banking regulations except when one of those regulations shows Hunter Biden making lots of money.

Yep.

Horrifying Video Shows Effect of Deep Sea Implosion on the Human Body

Mythbusters 25 Nov. 2009. The team's glee is weird given current events, but the science is interesting.





One article says that they likely died in milliseconds at the much greater depth.

[Vrede too]

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

I'd be okay with billing the uber-rich who have chosen exploits that no regular person could even consider. However, I can see the case for not billing people routinely, even the stupid ones. Maybe I'm biased. I'd like to think that I'm not stupid and I've never needed rescuing, but I did my share of adventuring where things might have gone wrong.

What do y'all think? Maybe it's too cruel to bill widows, but if the sub had been rescued should the people aboard have been made to pay?

[O Really]

The organizations that have a mission to rescue people are funded somehow - taxes, donations, yada, but aren't in the personal services business. Would you get around to charging a swimmer if the lifeguard had to pull him out? Even if he went in over his ability? I don't know that it's actually the job of the US Navy to try to rescue somebody in the middle of the ocean, but they do choose to do so. And I think it's is in fact part of the job of the Coast Guard. Anyway "cost" is relative. They'd still be paying the sailors no matter what they were doing, and they'd still be running the ship. And They can charge it off the the "training exercise" budget if they want.

[Vrede too]

The organizations that have a mission to rescue people are funded somehow - taxes, donations, yada, but aren't in the personal services business. Would you get around to charging a swimmer if the lifeguard had to pull him out? Even if he went in over his ability? I don't know that it's actually the job of the US Navy to try to rescue somebody in the middle of the ocean, but they do choose to do so. And I think it's is in fact part of the job of the Coast Guard. Anyway "cost" is relative. They'd still be paying the sailors no matter what they were doing, and they'd still be running the ship. And They can charge it off the the "training exercise" budget if they want.

It's complicated, but there are added costs with any rescue. That's what could be billed. No, I wouldn't charge a swimmer. I guess I'm favoring some sort of means testing for rescue from expensive adventures that go wrong, but I haven't worked out any details for it.

[billy.pilgrim]

The organizations that have a mission to rescue people are funded somehow - taxes, donations, yada, but aren't in the personal services business. Would you get around to charging a swimmer if the lifeguard had to pull him out? Even if he went in over his ability? I don't know that it's actually the job of the US Navy to try to rescue somebody in the middle of the ocean, but they do choose to do so. And I think it's is in fact part of the job of the Coast Guard. Anyway "cost" is relative. They'd still be paying the sailors no matter what they were doing, and they'd still be running the ship. And They can charge it off the the "training exercise" budget if they want.

Why not. We use insurance for lots of things. General policies would cover lifeguard type costs. Proof of rescue could be attached to boat and small plane licenses, passenger plane rescue and associated investigation would be in ticket price.
Why should someone who has never and will never go on a boat or plane contribute to the billions spent on these luxuries?

[billy.pilgrim]

The organizations that have a mission to rescue people are funded somehow - taxes, donations, yada, but aren't in the personal services business. Would you get around to charging a swimmer if the lifeguard had to pull him out? Even if he went in over his ability? I don't know that it's actually the job of the US Navy to try to rescue somebody in the middle of the ocean, but they do choose to do so. And I think it's is in fact part of the job of the Coast Guard. Anyway "cost" is relative. They'd still be paying the sailors no matter what they were doing, and they'd still be running
on the ship. And They can charge it off the the "training exercise" budget if they want.

It's complicated, but there are added costs with any rescue. That's what could be billed. No, I wouldn't charge a swimmer. I guess I'm favoring some sort of means testing for rescue from expensive adventures that go wrong, but I haven't worked out any details for it.

So you leave it to some small community to pay for rescues of people from outside the community.
If it were something included on Home Owners policy, or as an option with car insurance, etc, the community would be repaid and use the increased funds for a more vigorous rescue service.

[O Really]

It's complicated, but there are added costs with any rescue. That's what could be billed. No, I wouldn't charge a swimmer. I guess I'm favoring some sort of means testing for rescue from expensive adventures that go wrong, but I haven't worked out any details for it.

Sure there are added costs to actually rescue somebody as compared to floating along waiting for somebody to sink, but the funding/budget should anticipate that there will be some rescues. But in any case, any billing should not be a surprise after the fact. For your skin-flinty plan to work, you'd have to publicize widely what rescues you'd charge for and which are included in your tax bill. And when somebody sinks, you'd have to find the potential billee and give them the opportunity to opt out and leave their loved one sleeping with the mermaids. Or if somebody on a sinking ship is able to call for help, you'd have to say "sure, we can come after you, but it will cost you Xhundreds of thousand dollars. Do you accept this expense?"
Let us know when you have a plan and I'll be happy to nitpick it.

[Vrede too]

It's complicated, but there are added costs with any rescue. That's what could be billed. No, I wouldn't charge a swimmer. I guess I'm favoring some sort of means testing for rescue from expensive adventures that go wrong, but I haven't worked out any details for it.

So you leave it to some small community to pay for rescues of people from outside the community.
If it were something included on Home Owners policy, or as an option with car insurance, etc, the community would be repaid and use the increased funds for a more vigorous rescue service.

Those rescuers were probably funded in part with tourist dollars collected by the small community. I don't begrudge the feds rescuing you from a tornado or hurricane, threats that I'm not at risk from here. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, anyhow. O Really is the one in favor of entirely uncompensated rescuing. I'm somewhere between you two.

Sure there are added costs to actually rescue somebody as compared to floating along waiting for somebody to sink, but the funding/budget should anticipate that there will be some rescues. But in any case, any billing should not be a surprise after the fact. For your skin-flinty plan to work, you'd have to publicize widely what rescues you'd charge for and which are included in your tax bill. And when somebody sinks, you'd have to find the potential billee and give them the opportunity to opt out and leave their loved one sleeping with the mermaids. Or if somebody on a sinking ship is able to call for help, you'd have to say "sure, we can come after you, but it will cost you Xhundreds of thousand dollars. Do you accept this expense?"
Let us know when you have a plan and I'll be happy to nitpick it.

"some rescues" is different from fat cats that choose to push the limit. As the article points out (you both read it, right?), publicizing widely that all rescues will be billed will discourage regular folks from seeking help before it's too late. If it discourages fat cat exploits, fine with me. They don't need to be extreme tourists and we don't need to subsidize them. As for shipping, I'd be okay with a pre-rescue fee being assessed or rescue insurance being required like Nepal does. International enforcement might be impossible, though.

[O Really]

Your issue, as also pointed out in the article, which I read, seems to be whether those needing rescue are wealthy, not whether they did something unnecessarily risky. But I have no problem with refusing rescue to someone who takes unreasonable risks (like the AZ examples) as long as everybody should reasonably be expected to know the criteria. For some things it might be as simple as a sign in a frequently flooded place: "If you attempt to cross water here, we won't bail your stupid ass out." And I've seen them during hurricanes telling people that if they don't evacuate they won't be rescued, although they often renege on that threat. Of course, that logic could be extended to people who choose to live in the "Tornado Belt" or people who buy ocean-front houses in hurricane country. But hey, as long as they know the criteria before they go, let 'em die.

[neoplacebo]

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

I'd be okay with billing the uber-rich who have chosen exploits that no regular person could even consider. However, I can see the case for not billing people routinely, even the stupid ones. Maybe I'm biased. I'd like to think that I'm not stupid and I've never needed rescuing, but I did my share of adventuring where things might have gone wrong.

What do y'all think? Maybe it's too cruel to bill widows, but if the sub had been rescued should the people aboard have been made to pay?

In this case, rescue is a moot point now. But had they actually been rescued and pulled back up from the certain death that awaited them should they continue to sink (which I figure the owner of this thing as well as the oceanographer aboard knew what was going to happen if they didn't get rescued) and considering that from what's been reported, each of them paid something like $250K to ride this thing, I don't imagine any of them would bitch about having to pay to be rescued. But I'm operating here on the basic concept of wanting to survive whatever it takes. But not being a multimillionaire, I don't know if these people feel they merit some sort of entitlement or special treatment. What I'm saying is that if it were me, I'd pay 20% of the rescue cost without bitching about it, 20% based on their being five persons in the vehicle. That's assuming I'm rich enough to pay it, which I'm not. Besides, the Admiral goes down with the ashtray.

[Vrede too]

Your issue, as also pointed out in the article, which I read, seems to be whether those needing rescue are wealthy, not whether they did something unnecessarily risky.

As I said in my OP, my issue is with fat cats that do risky things that regular people could never afford to attempt. If a fat cat sprains an ankle on the same trails you and I hike on, I'm okay with free rescue.

But I have no problem with refusing rescue to someone who takes unreasonable risks (like the AZ examples) as long as everybody should reasonably be expected to know the criteria.

I have NOT suggested refusing rescue. No govt would want to appear so cold and that is not what people are calling for in AZ. Rather they're saying people should be billed. "unreasonable risk" is hard to define and the article points out that people will defer asking for rescue if told they'll be charged a fee. Rescue of the critical ill/injured or body recovery is usually even more expensive.

For some things it might be as simple as a sign in a frequently flooded place: "If you attempt to cross water here, we won't bail your stupid ass out."

Yeah, rescues will always happen regardless of such threats. The article does describe how such people are being billed by some locales. I'm fine with billing lawbreakers that need rescuing.

And I've seen them during hurricanes telling people that if they don't evacuate they won't be rescued, although they often renege on that threat.

They won't be rescued DURING the hurricane and emergency services usually do hunker down. They're always rescued after the danger has passed. I'd be okay with billing the ones that refused mandatory evacuation.

Of course, that logic could be extended to people who choose to live in the "Tornado Belt" or people who buy ocean-front houses in hurricane country.

... The United States averages about 1,200 tornadoes per year, followed by Canada, averaging 62 reported per year....

...In the United States over 80 deaths and 1,500 injuries are associated with tornadoes each year....

Fairly low individual risk. Might be best that tornado alley residents just pay the costs through their taxes. That said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tornado-dama ... 03085.html


Since I'm not in any flash flood zone, neither risk applies to me. Otoh, there's a slight earthquake risk . . . and we have rednecks and baptists.

But hey, as long as they know the criteria before they go, let 'em die.

Again, I'm assuming that rescues will always happen. It's what humans do. My only wish is that fat cat idiots be forced to pay for it. In the rare instance that one of them says, 'No, don't rescue me, I'm too cheap," fine with me.

[O Really]

Maybe it's just my little lizard legal brain, but retroactively billing for a service when the the "customer" has no prior knowledge or right of refusal just ain't right. If you (or somebody) can't clearly define the criteria and you've got some staff person making a case by case decision based at least in part on whether the "customer" is a fat cat or how fat s/he might be, it's sure to be majorly discriminatory and fat cats often have good lawyers.

[Vrede too]

Maybe it's just my little lizard legal brain, but retroactively billing for a service when the the "customer" has no prior knowledge or right of refusal just ain't right. If you (or somebody) can't clearly define the criteria and you've got some staff person making a case by case decision based at least in part on whether the "customer" is a fat cat or how fat s/he might be, it's sure to be majorly discriminatory and fat cats often have good lawyers.

Could very well be. It's just a wish of mine, not a fleshed out proposal. I agree with neoplacebo on the principle. I would expect clear definitions, I know that other things are means-tested, and there's the precedent of rescued people that drove around flood barriers being billed, but maybe it is unworkable.

[neoplacebo]

I just read that the district attorney in FL in the case of the crazy white woman who shot and killed her black neighbor through a closed door will not be prosecuted. Says there's "insufficient evidence."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-wo ... ough-door/

[billy.pilgrim]

I just read that the district attorney in FL in the case of the crazy white woman who shot and killed her black neighbor through a closed door will not be prosecuted. Says there's "insufficient evidence."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-wo ... ough-door/

Marion County is horse country and horse country means rich white folk with rich white people rules.

[neoplacebo]

I just read that the district attorney in FL in the case of the crazy white woman who shot and killed her black neighbor through a closed door will not be prosecuted. Says there's "insufficient evidence."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-wo ... ough-door/

Marion County is horse country and horse country means rich white folk with rich white people rules.

Well, shucks, I suppose there will be a rather vocal protest over this and any Blacks that get shot will not be prosecuted due to insufficient evidence. This DA is setting himself and his district up for some bigly trouble. Probably in the next day or two.