Costs of Rescue...

[jeremiason]

So I have no problem spending money on at sea rescues to a point.

For instance, how about the Carnival Triumph, which after a fire was disabled for five days in the Gulf of Mexico. That rescue cost 100's man hours and over $780,000 (US) to ferry supplies to the passengers without food.

Or Carnival Splendor, which after a fire stranded 4400 passengers for 3 days without electrical power off Mexico. This cost about 3 million for the Navy and USCG assets used to fly food to the ship while it was towed back to San Diego.

At the same time Carnival Cruise Lines pays about 1% of their annual income in US taxes.....

If those ships caused an oil spill, the companies would be held responsible.

The Oil Companies actually have a consortium formed that all the oil companies contribute to for a fleet of Spill Response Vessels stationed at strategic locations throughout the US.

In the Gulf, Oil Companies had to contract a private Air Ambulance Service after the USCG told them they were draining too many resources flying to the rigs.

So in the case of cruise ships why don't they contribute to their own system...

Couldn't the cruise companies have their own First Response Medical/Supply Vessels or Aircraft located in strategic areas and high traffic cruise ship routes?

This is an interesting article:
Cruise lines skirt U.S. tax, labor laws | FLORIDA TODAY | floridatoday.com

[scuba0_1]

It is funny how small and insignificant this amount is compared other wasteful spending but people feel they think they have a connection with this because it's so televised, there so many other places they should look at that really is waste but those are boring and they can't even comprehend the number it's so big they ignore it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jeremiason

Couldn't the cruise companies have their own First Response Medical/Supply Vessels or Aircraft located in strategic areas and high traffic cruise ship routes?

This is an interesting article:

Carnival Cruise shops are part of AMVER. They are active in rescues.

[Rustic Charm]

Wow! I've just read through all the posts to get an idea of the general census. Apart from the 'debate' on this thread about military costs which most of you seem to be saying the same thing but not willing to acknowledge it, I'd say all but a couple would agree that NO, rescues shouldn't be billed out.

Something that becomes so obvious on this forum is that especially the Americans (that's the USofA variety) seem to interpret just about all of ones life experience from your American (USA) perspective. There are many many others. So I might add a little different perspective and hopefully respond to the original posters question and also to another valid question that came up but most have seemed to miss.

Many nations and states within nations do not have any 'national' rescue facility. Some like our australian 'National' facility rely on military and non military facilities to carry out rescues when they are beyond the ability of local or state abilities.

Each state has a police or emergency service which is paid for by the state government and therefor by the tax payer. The emergency services are manned by volunteers. Many of our local or state rescue facilities are run by donations without any government assistance other than occasional grants. Even our Flying Doctors service in this great land is largely fund raised and donations.

Whilst it is absolutely true whoever said the comment that 'real life emergencies' are much better training opportunities, only limited training is actually budgeted for. Every major rescue has a budget impact, and as a former police officer in our small state, they impact significantly, even on our state financed services. It will often mean, less larger scale training events.

However, I've never met anyone involved in any emergency service involvement that would agree with moving to a 'user pay' system which is what the original poster asked. For the same reason we in our small state repeatedly reject a user pay system for ambulance or fire emergency's (some of our states sell insurance for those purposes), user pay systems lead dramatically to people delaying in calling for assistance which exposes both the people needing rescued and the rescuers to further risk. An easy and quick rescue is far less risky and financially cheaper than a full blown search and rescue.

Two others then suggested, they would be in favor of cost recovery for those who somehow 'exposed' themselves or were negligent. Again, the same concern exists. To begin with, in MOST marine situations, there is something to be learned, a mistake has been made, a judgement not what it should have been. It's easy for us armchair forum readers to direct blame as we so readily do without really knowing the true situation. But the reality is that responsibility is so often subjective. But, it again gets down to, if a user pay system was targeted at those who are negligent, or somehow 'at blame', responsible, then it would again reduce significantly the response of people using it, thereby putting them and their rescuers at further risk.

And of course as someone pointed out, there are responsibilities under international obligations to Rescue persons in need.

I think, most of us would agree, and certainly in Australia we are starting to see pranksters both charged and a cost recovery action been taken.

I've worked all my life, I've happily paid taxes all my life. And I'm more than content to continue to see my tax dollars go towards 'rescues' far more readily than some other stupid wastes our government spends on including unnecessary military involvements such as following the US to a war on false claims of WOMD.

To the person who so naively claims that taking an infant or toddler away from ready access to a pediatrician is somehow irrisponsible and therefore charges should apply? OMG do you not realize that throughout most of Australia a pediatrician is an air flight away? I've raised six children, and not one of them ever 'needed' a pediatrician. How many pediatrician's do you think are readily available on the hundreds of thousands of populated islands around the world? I was once in Ethiopia when some twit in our Australian government burocracy insisted we have our child see a 'pediatrician' in the country before returning to Australia. Well, it was 2006, and Ethiopia had just two pediatrician's in the Country. One was overseas and the other was down south visiting a hospital and wouldn't be back in the capital city for a month. . And yet you suggest ready access to one?

And to the person who claims Epirbs don't have GPS! Well, google it! GPIRB is just a clich word started by a company jumping on the GPS ability. Epirbs are sold with and without GPS ability.

[Spleen]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

To the person who so naively claims that taking an infant or toddler away from ready access to a pediatrician is somehow irrisponsible and therefore charges should apply? OMG do you not realize that throughout most of Australia a pediatrician is an air flight away? I've raised six children, and not one of them ever 'needed' a pediatrician. How many pediatrician's do you think are readily available on the hundreds of thousands of populated islands around the world? I was once in Ethiopia when some twit in our Australian government burocracy insisted we have our child see a 'pediatrician' in the country before returning to Australia. Well, it was 2006, and Ethiopia had just two pediatrician's in the Country. One was overseas and the other was down south visiting a hospital and wouldn't be back in the capital city for a month. . And yet you suggest ready access to one?

This caught my eye and piqued my interest. Do you mean your chidren never saw a doctor? Or a pediatrician as a specialist? I'm curious which you mean, or if you mean something else entirely. I assume your children had routine medical care? (I'm wondering if Aus is different than US, where pediatricians are plentiful-- dozens and dozens in a city)... It may be the person said pediatrician but meant ready access to medical care and a doctor or even nurse practitioner or physician assistant.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Spleen

This caught my eye and piqued my interest. Do you mean your chidren never saw a doctor? Or a pediatrician as a specialist? I'm curious which you mean, or if you mean something else entirely. I assume your children had routine medical care? (I'm wondering if Aus is different than US, where pediatricians are plentiful-- dozens and dozens in a city)... It may be the person said pediatrician but meant ready access to medical care and a doctor or even nurse practitioner or physician assistant.

I was referring to a 'pediatrician', as the person referred to. And pediatrician's are plentiful in the city's, we have 12 in ours. But they are only usually around city hospitals. Other than that we have visiting pediatrician's to major centers. Child health clinics are more readily accessible. But the further 'out back' you go the less available are even Doctors, and we are talking thousands of miles in places. My point is, it is being exceptionally ethnocentric to put USA or Australian city privileges as an indication of responsible parenting. Or is the idea that all those toddlers, infants on distant farms, distant communities should all be in the cities so they have ready access to a 'pediatrician' or even a medical expert?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

I was referring to a 'pediatrician', as the person referred to. And pediatrician's are plentiful in the city's, we have 12 in ours. But they are only usually around city hospitals. Other than that we have visiting pediatrician's to major centers. Child health clinics are more readily accessible. But the further 'out back' you go the less available are even Doctors, and we are talking thousands of miles in places. My point is, it is being exceptionally ethnocentric to put USA or Australian city privileges as an indication of responsible parenting. Or is the idea that all those toddlers, infants on distant farms, distant communities should all be in the cities so they have ready access to a 'pediatrician' or even a medical expert?

Mexico is not really out in the boondocks. Plenty of big city's.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by downunder

Mexico is not really out in the boondocks. Plenty of big city's.

Mexico ? And what is your point? I don't believe I mentioned 'Mexico'.

[hellosailor]

"Couldn't the cruise companies have their own First Response Medical/Supply Vessels or Aircraft "
No, really? Do you have any idea what it would cost to staff and maintain one base for one ship capable of "responding" in any meaningful way to a 5000-soul cruise ship in any kind of distress on the high seas? Now multiply that into a network girdling the world. And you will need ships, because aircraft are lousy at tows and can't supply much of anything bigger than toothpicks to 5000 souls all at the same time.

The phrase is "economically unfeasible". And one must remember that first and foremost, every cruise line is a business entity which exists solely to make the greatest possible profit. The best way to do that is to pay minimal taxes, and let the governments (plural) pick up the big ticket items.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

Mexico ? And what is your point? I don't believe I mentioned 'Mexico'.

I did think this thread was had some reference related to the cost of rescue of the Rebel Heart, that had been cruising and left from Mexico.

Perhaps I am mistaken and owe you an apology.

Cheers

[psneeld]

Not positive about the Navy while actually at sea...but the cost of rescues (except for mega ones like Cuban Refugee Exodus or Katrina) are budgeted for. More rescues, less air shows...the bottom line is maintained except for national level emergencies.

The best I can figure...the same with the Navy while deployed. Does one really think the cost of diverting a Navy ship and flying a few hours of helo time is even seen on a line item budget for a multi-month deployment of a battle group? Not likely.

Budgets are spent to the end...otherwise next year you get less....thus if a rescue that makes the Navy or any service look good at the national or international level...I'm sure it's done, something else from the deployment is cut off and the budget hits the mark...plus or minus which is expected anyway.

I may be wrong about the Navy but after handling rescue budgets for the USCG for a few years...juggling aviation, small cutter and small boat station budgets as a group operations officer, deputy group commander, and group comptroller...unless budgeting has changed (and my thoughts are it hasn't based on keeping up with things) .... recues are basically free to the taxpayer until they change the budget process...unless you would rather have the USCG and probably other services to spend their budget money on air shows, school visits, flyovers, etc...etc...

[hellosailor]

Rebel Heart left from Mexico.

So what? A US boat in distress in international waters, does not radio back to their last port of call. If you flew through Kansas last week, does that mean you should vote there?

No. Mexico? Might as well call Spain, they're the ones who started Mexico.

[Rustic Charm]

Ok, I'm lost!

[PDA1]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"- The Maesrsk Alabama's Captain Richard Phillips was rescued off of Somalia and everyone cheered."
That's got nothing to do with "vessel in distress" rescues at sea. The salient point there was that an American citizen was taken captive by pirates, and the "full force and power" of the US government is obligated to be used to rescue a citizen in that situation.
Coincidentally, the Jones Acts and the vessel documentation laws (in 10 USC as I recall) grant similar protection to US seamen and documented vessels. A vessel named "Alabama" just might be US flagged.

"- the Mayaguez incident off of Cambodia in 1975."
Again, nothing to do with SAR. To quote those Wiki folks: "The Mayaguez incident, which took place between the Khmer Rouge and the United States from May 12–15, 1975, was the last official battle of the Vietnam War."
An official battle of an illegal military action often mistaken for a war. Hmm. Do also bear in mind that like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the USN, DoD, and other players told some whopping big lies about what happened in that corner of the world during those years. That's military politics, not SAR.

I wasn't debating the legality of the Vietnam action or any other action since WW II.

Briefly using the navy to rescue people is a very good use of them. And what mariner amongst us wouldn't have attempted the rescue themselves if they were in the area of the Rebel Heart? Whose money would've been used then? The military isn't that "god-almighty" important that they are above helping us little people. We are the ones that fund them. They exist only because we pay for them and they supposedly serve the interests of the American people (yeah, right).

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Budgets are spent to the end...otherwise next year you get less....thus if a rescue that makes the Navy or any service look good at the national or international level...I'm sure it's done, something else from the deployment is cut off and the budget hits the mark...plus or minus which is expected anyway.

I don't argue that rescues aren't worth it, but the logic that "because it's budgeted for, it doesn't cost anything" is a kind of circular logic.

Government services DO cost something, and it does matter what the government spends money on. It also matters how much the government spends.

The logic here basically amounts to "if the government spends $436 on a hammer does it matter? After all, your tax bill isn't going up... They were going to buy some hammers anyway, so they'll just buy less of them. If they hadn't overspent on hammers, they would have just overspent on screwdrivers... No matter what, they're going to spend to their budget, so they can ensure the same budget for next year."

Yes, rescues cost something. And yes, it matters how much rescues cost. It's worth it, mind you, but they have a cost.

There are different ways to look at costs, so it turns out to be pretty easy to rationalize that "money would have been wasted anyway" or that "fuel would have been burned anyway", because there is some truth to it. However, there is opportunity cost, and if you spend on one thing, something else gets cut. It's simply not easy to evaluate if that thing that got cut had value, if you don't know what didn't get done, or why it was important.

I notice a disproportionate number of people making the "the money would have just been wasted anyway" argument are prior Navy or Coast Guard budget officers, which is somewhat troubling. If we're wasting so much money, shouldn't we be cutting those budgets? But then that effort becomes problematic, as the things that get cut aren't the wasteful things, but the most visible and needed services, while hidden wasteful spending continues unabated. Sigh.