The race is on to rescue Ken Barnes, a 47-year-old Californian whose storm-damaged boat is adrift somewhere off the tip of South America. Barnes had been trying to circumnavigate the globe. Now, apparently, he's trying just to survive, and he's the object of a massive search-and-rescue effort.
My question is, who's paying for that effort? Not Barnes, I reckon. But the Chilean navy and the U.S. Coast Guard sure are. (Apparently, a fleet of private fishing boats and pleasure craft are helping, too.)
So, is that fair?
Is it fair that the community had to pay whatever it cost to go after the three climbers who died on Mount Hood in December? As Sam Howe Verhovek of the L.A. Times pointed out, those deaths were tragic--but the guys weren't carrying emergency locator devices. And what were they doing on that mountain in December, anyway?
This tension plays out in much smaller ways all the time. I hurt my back badly playing soccer a couple of months ago, and had to have surgery. Too bad for me--but should a 47-year-old guy be playing a high-impact sport at all? My health insurance paid the tab, but I haven't paid any more for that coverage than my (arguably) lower-risk (okay, I'll say it: smarter) colleagues.
Obviously, this is a tough ethical problem, and an even tougher practical one. Even if we agreed that Barnes should be liable for at least part of the expense of his rescue, how would we enforce that? If someone sets off to sail around the planet, does the port collect a preemptive stupidity fee? Is it built into his personal liability policy? For nimrods like me, one answer is health insurance with high copays and deductibles--but that's hard to mandate, too.
I dunno. I'm staying away from soccer, though.
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, ethics, Ken Barnes, Business, Health Insurance, Insurance, Personal Finance |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 6 Total
January 4, 2007 at 1:49pm by Dennis
This post shows just how far the mindlessness of cost accountants has gone in polluting our minds. Fact is we live in a society and one of the reasons that societies exist to protect their members from misfortune. We created the Coast Guard, in part, to take care of those at risk in the sea. The Chilean Navy (busy as it is fighting off attacks otherwise) also exists in part for that reason. The cost of saving Mr. Barnes is incidental and accepted as part of the role those life-saving groups have assigned to them. Do you think the ships don't run or that the Guardsmen go without pay unless there is a Mr. Barnes situation present? Play soccer. Sail. That's why we fund insurance companies and Coast Guards.
Get rid of your virtual green eyeshade and think for a minute.
January 4, 2007 at 1:50pm by Dennis
This post shows just how far the mindlessness of cost accountants has gone in polluting our minds. Fact is we live in a society and one of the reasons that societies exist to protect their members from misfortune. We created the Coast Guard, in part, to take care of those at risk in the sea. The Chilean Navy (busy as it is fighting off attacks otherwise) also exists in part for that reason. The cost of saving Mr. Barnes is incidental and accepted as part of the role those life-saving groups have assigned to them. Do you think the ships don't run or the Guardsmen go without pay unless there is a Mr. Barnes situation present? Play soccer. Sail. That's why we fund insurance companies and Coast Guards.
Get rid of your virtual green eyeshade and think for a minute.
January 4, 2007 at 8:47pm by Peter Stinson
As a former search & rescue controller at the Coast Guard's Rescue Coordination Center Norfolk (Virginia), I can tell you that the people making decisions on what to do, don't give one thought to cost. The cost of doing business doesn't enter into the equation. We launch assets to save lives; it's what we do. Some bean counter keeps track of asset hours, but it NEVER gets taken into account for search & rescue cases.
Should we recoup costs expended for thrill-seekers? That's a policy question. And it's a policy question not for members of the Coast Guard, but for our elected officials in Congress and the White House.
I don't know anything about Mr. Barnes' case, other than what I've read in online, but it sounds like he has the appropriate safety gear; his voyage does not sound really all that unusual. He's not trying to row across the Atlantic (Tori Murden in the AMERICAN PEARL who was rescued several hundred miles west of France when she capsized... I was on-watch that night... and we suspected her voyage was a SAR-case-waiting-to-happen... but, even so, her voyage was not deemed inherently unsafe, and she did also have the proper safety equipment) nor is he trying to balloon around the world (like Richard Branson, Steve Fossett, and Per Lindstrand who ditched off Hawaii on Christmas 1998).
Anyway, we have Rescue Coordination Centers so we can do what we do.
I'd offer this: make sure you have the proper safety equipment and the proper training. For those who don't, we'll still come get you, but... it's always much better to be more self-sufficient...
January 5, 2007 at 9:12pm by Benjamin Strong
Both Peter and Dennis make valid points. As the director of the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System (Amver), a voluntary search and rescue program sponsored by the United States Coast Guard, I had some indirect involvement in this very case. The Amver program uses commercial vessels to assist in search and rescue cases, often making the rescue with no assistance from other search and rescue services, anywhere in the world.
Because of treaties and agreements already in place with Chile, and as Peter so clearly stated, no resource was spared in the search for Mr. Barnes. Fortunately, and in compliance with recent changes in the law, Mr. Barnes was carrying a 406 MHz Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacon (EPRIB). Mr. Barnes also registered his beacon with the appropriate authorities prior to embarking on his journey.
Operating costs of a United States Coast Guard 378 foot Cutter can exceed $10,000 per hour. These costs, however, are necessary to ensure the safety of life at sea. The search and rescue mission is a legacy mission of the United States Coast Guard and search and rescue services around the world.
Fortunately over 3,000 Amver participating vessels are available every day to divert and rescue those in distress anywhere in the world. Having commercial vessels, who often transit areas traditional navies and coast guards do not patrol, agree to rescue mariners in distress saves taxpayers around the world millions of dollars. In fact, Amver vessels rescued 333 people in 2006.
While the merits of those who decide to sail around the world, fly balloons across the oceans, or otherwise engage in behavior some may deem risky is debatable, we have a responsibility to ensure they have a safety network in place to save them if it become necessary.
January 9, 2007 at 12:59pm by Jason
"While the merits of those who decide to sail around the world, fly balloons across the oceans, or otherwise engage in behavior some may deem risky is debatable, we have a responsibility to ensure they have a safety network in place to save them if it become necessary."
The only people who can afford such activities are the very rich. In other words, we have built a safety network for the elite funded by the masses. The rich seeking risks should have to pay insurance to cover the costs of pointless, macho thrill seeking. They could surely afford it and the costs would be spread out and covered by the risk takers themselves.
April 24, 2007 at 1:30pm by Brian
I know this thread is old, but I just want to say that I disagree that sailing around the world is the type of activity that is limited to the very rich. In fact, in the next 5 years, I plan to do exactly the same thing, and while I am by no means rich, by saving my money and planning, I will be able realize this endevaour. Moreover, I fully expect to carry and actively maintain all the safety gear I can in order to minimize any chance that I will need a rescue at sea.
I realize that not everyone has the opportunity to experience everything they would like to, those who do get the opportunity should not all be categorized as rich or elite.