"Bru Peckett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian Stott wrote ...
>In FACT, they tend to call out the VOLUNTEER mountain rescue teams who >receive NO government funding whatsoever! Not in much of North America they don't. It is a service provided by government, at considerable public expense. >When rescue helicopters are involved, they are usually from the RAF or the >Royal Navy whose primary role is the rescue of service personnel and are >funded from military appropriations. As far as the military SAR teams are >concerned, civilian rescues keep the aircrews operating at peak efficiency Ah. So fire crews are happy when a house catches fire, because it gives them practice? >>If the climbers had >> insurance (cor, what a premium!) to cover recovery charges from the >> crew, I wouldn't care about them at all. Such charges are starting to >> appear, including IIRC for search-and-rescue of hikers in the North >> American wilderness. > >And that is the thin end of a very very big and nasty wedge. Charge the >climber for the helicopter rescue. Sounds reasonable. OK, let's charge the >motorist for the fire brigade cutting him out of his car. Let's charge >granny for the ambulance that takes her to hospital when she has a fall at >home. Actually, they already do charge (and in some areas at least have done >for more than 30 years) for emergency ambulance services to insured >motorists ... or in my case motorcyclists. So in all of the above examples, insurance is appropriate. >(Talking of motorbikes, if one accepts your arguments *at all* then they'd >be banned too!) Throughout this thread, I haven't suggested banning anything. I have counselled against single-handed boating, as IMHO it is a fairly dangerous activity, the dangers of which are significantly under-recognised. I have argued that if you want to undertake a hazardous activity which may result in a situation from which the state (or some other entity) may be required to rescue you, you should be prepared to pay for that rescue. Such rescues can be expensive, so you would be a mug not to have insurance. The premiums for such insurance are likely to be high. That to me is a good way of bringing the true nature of the hazards involved to the attention of the public,. >Actually, let's just charge everybody the full cost of everything. If they >can't afford it, then they can die and leave those of us who can better off. Or they can, prudently, not do those hazardous activities they cannot afford to insure themselves for. >'I'm very sorry Mr. Smith, you'll have to die because your insurance is out >of date and we can't send an ambulance to you' Which is why all those who can afford it will sensibly have health insurance. And why the proposals in e.g. the US for those who cannot afford the premiums is to give them money to pay them. >I do not want to live in a world like that. A world where the only people >who can enjoy themselves are the well off. A world where the quality of >medical care and the availability of emergency services is determined by >ability to pay. If I did, I'd move to the USA! See the above paragraph. The ways in which you can enjoy yourself are affected by price just as much in UK as in US. Do a lot of pheasant shooting, do you? Or salmon fishing? Or car racing? Or ... Most decisions have economic consequences. Pretending they don't, or insisting that others pay the price for you, don't seem very defensible approaches to me. >> If there are two people and one falls in the lock, the other can save >> him. >> >> If there is one person and he falls in the lock ... > >A. He can save himself >B. He dies - he chose to take the risk. His choice. Precisely my point. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
