Recommended Posts
TomAiello 25
QuoteI'd much rather that I pay for my own rescue and health care, and that I get to decide what I do that might require them.
so if you became unemployed or financially destitute and could no longer pay for your insurance, would you then quit BASE...
Yes, I think I would. At least for as long as it took me to get back to a place in my life where I could take responsibility for myself. The couple hundred bucks I pay each year for my umbrella insurance isn't very much. I figure it'd take me a couple of weeks, tops, to make the money. Either that or I'd forego my next Toxic pilot chute and pay for a year of insurance instead.
Ten48 0
I think that most of us agree that we should take responsibility for our own actions.
The point here is that in a civilized world, society should do what it can to help people who's lives are in immediate danger. I know that I don't want to live in a place where society can help save someone's life, but won't, because the person can't pay for it or doesn't have insurance.
How many ambulance drivers do you know that won't scoop someone off the asphalt and take them to a hospital even if they don't have insurance? Or how would you like it if an EMT is standing over you while you're unconscious and bleeding out but he won't help because he can't find your insurance card?
Let's leave the worries about money alone until after the lives have been saved. And then we, as red-blooded Americans, can litigate until our heads fall off.
Or we can just get a national healthcare system that saves lives without pointing fingers instead of spending all our time and effort on building a 700 mile fence on a 2100 mile border.
It's time now! My time now! Give me mine. Give me my wings! - MJK
The point here is that in a civilized world, society should do what it can to help people who's lives are in immediate danger. I know that I don't want to live in a place where society can help save someone's life, but won't, because the person can't pay for it or doesn't have insurance.
How many ambulance drivers do you know that won't scoop someone off the asphalt and take them to a hospital even if they don't have insurance? Or how would you like it if an EMT is standing over you while you're unconscious and bleeding out but he won't help because he can't find your insurance card?
Let's leave the worries about money alone until after the lives have been saved. And then we, as red-blooded Americans, can litigate until our heads fall off.
Or we can just get a national healthcare system that saves lives without pointing fingers instead of spending all our time and effort on building a 700 mile fence on a 2100 mile border.
It's time now! My time now! Give me mine. Give me my wings! - MJK
Whatever happens, I would face the consequences. Isn't that what BASE is about?
Quote
Yes it is, but part of living in a civilized society is health care for everyone no matter how stupid they are perceived to be. A golfer looks at us and says we are crazy we look back and say he is nuts. If he has a heart attack on the course and has no insurance he has just as much right to health care as you breaking a leg on a f'd up landingWestside is the best side!
TomAiello 25
QuoteLet's leave the worries about money alone until after the lives have been saved.
Worrying about them just a tiny bit before you go out for an adventure can save you a lot of headache and heartache if things do go badly.
Having a very simple insurance policy has saved me literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenses in BASE accidents (primarily just one accident). I'm very, very happy that I got the insurance in advance so I had one less thing to worry about when I was in the hospital. That also applies when you are laying on the talus busted up, or hanging off the side of the object.
I'd much rather that I pay for my own rescue and health care, and that I get to decide what I do that might require them.
Any time you ask society to pay your bills, you give society the right to stick it's nose into your business. I'd rather pay my own bills and have society keep it's nose out.
---------------------------------------------------------
This is true. A very strong point.
Any time you ask society to pay your bills, you give society the right to stick it's nose into your business. I'd rather pay my own bills and have society keep it's nose out.
---------------------------------------------------------
This is true. A very strong point.
wwarped 0
Quote
The point here is that in a civilized world, society should do what it can to help people who's lives are in immediate danger. I know that I don't want to live in a place where society can help save someone's life, but won't, because the person can't pay for it or doesn't have insurance.
it's called "facilitating."
the government safety net encourages some to act more recklessly. many already avoid working because it would not pay enough to leave government assistance.
many in the US are constantly trying to "rig" the system. they'll spend much more energy avoiding some rule than just going along with it...
now, do not take my comments as a enthusiastic endorsement of the current medical system in the US. it is incredibly flawed. I just disagree with where people look for answers - to others. I've seen seriously obese people suffer heart attacks, and then complain that the doctors failed to return them to perfect health.
no system will work until people take advantage of the simple ways to assume responsibility. i.e. Tom's umbella insurance policy or the $5 tracking device for those guys up on Mt Hood...
cultures that encourage responsible behavior are far better candidates for enhanced social services.
DON'T PANIC
The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse
The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse
Guest 1010
Living in the area, the story was inescapable for several days ... unfortunately I'm pretty (and coldly) cynical about the media's motives. ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
The only reason that I can see for the media to have touted the guys as being "experienced" and hacing their gear along was to keep the fantasy that they may be alive, which kept the story alive. If they had said early on that these guys were toast ... no story, no hundreds(?) of dollars per second for the view of the chinook helicopter at the summit of Hood, etc. They didn't wish to get the story right, their desire was to have a dramatic story and the ratings that went with it, period.
For the thread, I'm not a BASE jumper, but if I couldn't afford ins I wouldn't skydive. It really doesn't bother me that my tax dolars go into searches like this, but for me I need to pay to play.
You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.
The only reason that I can see for the media to have touted the guys as being "experienced" and hacing their gear along was to keep the fantasy that they may be alive, which kept the story alive. If they had said early on that these guys were toast ... no story, no hundreds(?) of dollars per second for the view of the chinook helicopter at the summit of Hood, etc. They didn't wish to get the story right, their desire was to have a dramatic story and the ratings that went with it, period. For the thread, I'm not a BASE jumper, but if I couldn't afford ins I wouldn't skydive. It really doesn't bother me that my tax dolars go into searches like this, but for me I need to pay to play.
You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.
Ten48 0
QuoteWorrying about them just a tiny bit before you go out for an adventure can save you a lot of headache and heartache if things do go badly.
Right. I agree with that statement completely. I don't think anyone here is arguing that we don't need or shouldn't need to have insurance. It's a great idea, even if just to protect your personal finances.
But the point of the article that was the topic of this thread is that the media and "public" get into a big uproar over what they perceive as being "too risky" and "too taxing" on rescue services. Their take on it is that we should outlaw all things THEY perceive as being risky and/or let those who partake in risky behavior perish - stand by and watch them bleed out. "Let's get a webcam out there so everyone can watch!"
Nick's point is valid - who decides what's too risky? What do we outlaw? Who do we let die? The BASE jumpers? The mountaineers? Grandma walking to the corner to get a loaf of bread? (She shouldn't be going out alone at that age! Too risky!)
Let's stop worrying about what's too risky for you, me, or grandma and go out and save some lives that are in immediate danger. When the climbers (or jumpers or grandma) are safe, we'll try to figure out how to pay for it. Hopefully for the climbers personal finances, they looked ahead enough to pick up some sort of insurance. Just like grandma.
Part of a modern society is losing the barbaric attitudes. Part of the society *I* want to live in allows people to make their own decisions rather than writing thousands of stupid laws.
It's time now! My time now! Give me mine. Give me my wings! - MJK
HydroGuy 0
QuoteThe bottom line is everyone in a civilized society deserves rescue and medical care, regardless of how boneheaded they are, or if they can pay the tab. That goes for the guy who burns himself cooking dinner and the guy who has a 180 and crashes into a tower.
Once we start deciding who gets saved and who doesn't based on the activity it becomes a slippery slope . . . and who makes those decisions? Is dropping a frozen turkey into a pot of boiling oil any lamer than mis-rigging your BASE rig?
I never said refuse rescue services or medical treatment to anyone...but in the end, you should have to pay for it. It is part of the responsibility we must all accept for our actions.
And if you can't pay for it monetarily, then you should pay for it in civil service. Like the WPA or CCC. Hell, make the people work on rebuilding services in the aging National Parks...
This thread could rapidly degrade into speakers corner issues though.....
Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary
I'm actually heading up to AK in May of 07' to climb Denali. At permit and check in time, the NPS Rangers up there interview each climber and go over their gear with them, to make sure they are adequately prepared.
The only reason they do this is because Denali is ruthless and a ton of people would be unprepared if they didn't. Despite this, anyone can get a permit to climb Denali, regardless of their gear or experience level.
Since the NPS is doing gear checks and interviews before climbers access the mountian, should this get them (the NPS) off the hook for any rescue costs in the event of an accident? What would be the argument against requiring all climbers to have rescue insurance before heading up?
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but. . . . . . . could mandatory rescue insurance for BASE jumpers be used as a selling point to the NPS when it comes to access permits?
The only reason they do this is because Denali is ruthless and a ton of people would be unprepared if they didn't. Despite this, anyone can get a permit to climb Denali, regardless of their gear or experience level.
Since the NPS is doing gear checks and interviews before climbers access the mountian, should this get them (the NPS) off the hook for any rescue costs in the event of an accident? What would be the argument against requiring all climbers to have rescue insurance before heading up?
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but. . . . . . . could mandatory rescue insurance for BASE jumpers be used as a selling point to the NPS when it comes to access permits?
Here is some food for thought on everyone's table.
If there is a big plane crash in the middle of lets say Kanas, and millions of dollars are spent in the search and rescue effort. Does the victims, airline, etc foot the bill for the efforts of hundreds of people? Personally, I pay my taxes and expect them to be used to either save me or someone else. Not to go to corrupt A-holes on the hill. I may not have a lot experience in this, but I have to agree with Nick on this.
If there is a big plane crash in the middle of lets say Kanas, and millions of dollars are spent in the search and rescue effort. Does the victims, airline, etc foot the bill for the efforts of hundreds of people? Personally, I pay my taxes and expect them to be used to either save me or someone else. Not to go to corrupt A-holes on the hill. I may not have a lot experience in this, but I have to agree with Nick on this.
Hi,
You crazy americans, you never cease to astonish the rest of the world, do you?
BS/BD
956
You crazy americans, you never cease to astonish the rest of the world, do you?
BS/BD
956
It continues to baffle me that so few people understand how insurance works. I tried to resist, but I'm afraid I have to take this speaker's corner.
Insurance works on a premise; that in a group of people only a fraction will suffer from X but that it is difficult to impossible to predict the distribution of said fraction..
Two points need stressing:
I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing (that's outside of this discussion) but it's important to realize that social healthcare works on the premise outlined above, just like insurance companies do.
Let us look at some scenarios:
Anybody who still agrees at this point that BASE jumpers need to be saved at all cost fall for a stubborn myth; that unconditional support for fellow human beings is a moral necessity and practical possibility.
Let me attack the moral necessity first...
You can save a life today by donating hundred dollars to your nearest third-world-country charitable organization. Perhaps some of those organizations are inefficient or corrupt, but it is easily provable that a hundred dollars can save a life somewhere with relative ease. I'm also convinced that you don't need that hundred dollar to stay alive for the next little while.
So why don't you?
If you think government regulated insurance (through social healthcare) makes sense, then why doesn't this argument extrapolate to a worldwide insurance? After all, you couldn't predict where you were born.
Perhaps unconditional support is a moral obligation on some ethical scale (Peter Singer has some interesting articles about this), but not on mine per se, and I don't see the world around me disagree.
Now let us consider the practical reality of such unconditional support. The fact of the matter is, our healthcare systems are already under enormous amounts of economic stress. But hear the outcry of the tax-payer if the goverment asks for more to boost healthcare. I predict this will only get worse. We have no other options but to transition to a world in which healthcare is applied conditionally. Additional support will have to come from more and more privatized insurance.
And unless you send a hundred dollars to Africa (with apologies to the continent) and agree to pay more taxes, you'll have to come to terms with this.
...including making sure that you have appropriate insurance for BASE. If you live in a country where social healthcare takes care of you, congratulations. Let sleeping dogs lie and consider yourself lucky. But please don't judge other countries; insurance (including the one your goverment supplies) has no emotion, and justly so.
Insurance works on a premise; that in a group of people only a fraction will suffer from X but that it is difficult to impossible to predict the distribution of said fraction..
Two points need stressing:
- Only a fraction will run into X.
If everybody would suffer from X, it would be impossible to buy insurance for it. The reason is economical; insurance companies would go bankrupt.
To illustrate, let X be hair growth. Imagine a completely bald species where one in every hundred individuals can suddenly develop some sort of rapid hair growth. I guarantee you, there would be an insurance company that supplies razor blades.
In our world, everybody grows hair. So we pay for our own visits to the barber shop. - Second point; it is difficult to impossible to predict who will suffer from X.
If X were entirely predictable, non-carriers of X would have a problem sharing the cost. Let X be menstruation. Wonder why there is no insurance for tampons? It's too obvious what part of the population will need them at some point.
For the logic inclined; the previous point about fractions is just a consequence of this one. If the fraction is equal to the whole population, predictability is trivial.
I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing (that's outside of this discussion) but it's important to realize that social healthcare works on the premise outlined above, just like insurance companies do.
Let us look at some scenarios:
- The plane crash in Kansas.
Insurance makes sense here (for most countries, that would be through government regulated taxing) because not every plane that takes off is guaranteed to crash, nor is it predictable (a priori) that this plane headed for Kansas would crash. - A baby born with severe handicaps.
Insurance makes sense here, since we can not accurately predict which babies will or won't be affected.
But it gets interesting now. What about the mother who smokes, drinks and uses drugs during her pregnancy? Suddenly we tweak the predictability factor, and insurance starts making less sense. - What about a life-long smoker developing lung cancer?
Predictability becomes easier yet again, and insurance gets complicated. Already we see countries toy with the idea of giving non-smokers priority on waiting lists. - What about BASE jumping?
Depending on the group, predictability can be easy or difficult. Take the entire population as the group and it's very easy to predict that BASE jumpers will be hurt on a BASE jump (this is important) more often than non-BASE jumpers. In other words, predictability is high so insurance makes less sense.
Take only the subgroup of BASE jumpers and it becomes harder to predict who will get hurt badly and who will only hurt his pinky finger. Predictability goes down significantly, and suddenly insurance becomes a useful tool again.
Anybody who still agrees at this point that BASE jumpers need to be saved at all cost fall for a stubborn myth; that unconditional support for fellow human beings is a moral necessity and practical possibility.
Let me attack the moral necessity first...
You can save a life today by donating hundred dollars to your nearest third-world-country charitable organization. Perhaps some of those organizations are inefficient or corrupt, but it is easily provable that a hundred dollars can save a life somewhere with relative ease. I'm also convinced that you don't need that hundred dollar to stay alive for the next little while.
So why don't you?
If you think government regulated insurance (through social healthcare) makes sense, then why doesn't this argument extrapolate to a worldwide insurance? After all, you couldn't predict where you were born.
Perhaps unconditional support is a moral obligation on some ethical scale (Peter Singer has some interesting articles about this), but not on mine per se, and I don't see the world around me disagree.
Now let us consider the practical reality of such unconditional support. The fact of the matter is, our healthcare systems are already under enormous amounts of economic stress. But hear the outcry of the tax-payer if the goverment asks for more to boost healthcare. I predict this will only get worse. We have no other options but to transition to a world in which healthcare is applied conditionally. Additional support will have to come from more and more privatized insurance.
And unless you send a hundred dollars to Africa (with apologies to the continent) and agree to pay more taxes, you'll have to come to terms with this.
...including making sure that you have appropriate insurance for BASE. If you live in a country where social healthcare takes care of you, congratulations. Let sleeping dogs lie and consider yourself lucky. But please don't judge other countries; insurance (including the one your goverment supplies) has no emotion, and justly so.
TomAiello 25
QuoteWhat about BASE jumping?
Depending on the group, predictability can be easy or difficult. Take the entire population as the group and it's very easy to predict that BASE jumpers will be hurt on a BASE jump (this is important) more often than non-BASE jumpers. In other words, predictability is high so insurance makes less sense.
Take only the subgroup of BASE jumpers and it becomes harder to predict who will get hurt badly and who will only hurt his pinky finger. Predictability goes down significantly, and suddenly insurance becomes a useful tool again.
In the real world, it doesn't work out that way. Because there are no "BASE jumping rescue insurance" policies, jumpers are lumped in with a group of other people who take risks that may or may not be related. For example, in a rescue insurance group, you've got folks who might need rescue while hiking or climbing. In a larger umbrella policy group you get lumped in with people who may be looking at libel lawsuits, or personal liability from a slip-and-fall in a rental property.
In other words, taking the entire population as the group, and a variety of risks in one insurance policy, you cannot generalize that BASE jumpers are more likely than average to invoke the insurance. Who says that BASE jumpers are a higher risk than slum lords, for example? Comparing BASE jumper to high altitude mountaineers gives another, equally difficult, risk calculus.
QuoteIn the real world, it doesn't work out that way.
Although it does "work" that way, you're right that it doesn't "work out" that way. What I mean is that although the logic behind predictability holds, insurance covers more than just BASE jumping.
You give the example yourself; instead of limiting it to just BASE jumpers you take a slightly larger group (those that have rescue insurance). My original statement translated to this group still holds:
Those people that put themselves in places where they might need a rescue will require a rescue more often than those people that do no go there to begin with.
QuoteIn other words, taking the entire population as the group, and a variety of risks in one insurance policy, you cannot generalize that BASE jumpers are more likely than average to invoke the insurance. Who says that BASE jumpers are a higher risk than slum lords, for example? Comparing BASE jumper to high altitude mountaineers gives another, equally difficult, risk calculus.
I never said anything to that extent. It's precisely why I wrote (emphasized): " BASE jumpers will be hurt on a BASE jump (this is important) more often than non-BASE jumpers. This is what makes insurance work. The math along a single line.
Of course you are totally right that most insurance policies don't just cover X, they cover X, Y, and Z. As such, it becomes much harder to speak about who suffers increased risk and who doesn't. That's why we have discussions about such things, instead of black-and-white obvious absolutes.
But I think you and I will both agree that on average BASE jumpers are more taxing on the healthcare system (from wherever it is funded) than my healthy-eating exercising philatelizing neighbour.
Which of course could put us on a slope where we discuss the societal merits of BASE jumping and how we are pioneers of human flight inspiring millions around us. Or the other slope where we condemn all smokers and grease-eating lazy television addicts.
Bah...
All I'm trying to say is that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and only consider it a bonus if somebody else jumps in and helps. Last time I checked, the universe didn't owe me anything.
I probably would, yes.
Whatever happens, I would face the consequences. Isn't that what BASE is about?
Part of that is having the opportunity to live in a society that foots the bill for my stupidity. I'll let sleeping dogs lie, but if one day they'll awake I'll find insurance elsewhere.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites