Rescue insurance, do you have it?

[Zone-5]

Rescue insurance, do you have it?

What does it cost a hiker for a heli rescue?
I would imagine it would cost many $1,000's!

Free of charge.

NO WAY! Ambulance services are not free so why should this be?

For me at a minimum would be an injury requiring immediate medical intervention!

So what insurer covers this and who ultimately pays for it? Don't tell me it's part of the 23% increase in our Emergency Services tax on top of the previous years 800% increase!!!

It's about time us bush walkers took out dedicated insurance for this else at least be forced to pay a significant proportion of the rescue costs to promote the uptake of insurance.

I think it's about time that we have it the same as you either have ambulance insurance or be required to pay for those services up front!

Your bits...

[photohiker]

I pay a small fee when I am going solo overseas so that my (hopefully living) body can be retrieved. Google 'Geos rescue member benefit'

In Australia, many people get stuck in remote areas, and the majority are not bushwalkers, and we can't just leave them there...

[Zone-5]

No I'm not advocating leaving anyone anywhere but if I needed rescue I would want it without regard to the cost unless I was suicidal...

[neilmny]

As far as I know our Ambulance Victoria subscription has it covered.
No probs.

[LouisT]

I think you right that Ambulance Victoria covers the cost of an air evacuation and transport to hospital (great value for such an underfunded institution) but I am not sure if that includes the cost of search and rescue?

[Overlandman]

Zero cost in Tasmania.
0000000000000000000

[photohiker]

No I'm not advocating leaving anyone anywhere but if I needed rescue I would want it without regard to the cost unless I was suicidal...

In Australia, we all get premium rescue service without regard for the cost.

[north-north-west]

No I'm not advocating leaving anyone anywhere but if I needed rescue I would want it without regard to the cost unless I was suicidal...

In Australia, we all get premium rescue service without regard for the cost.

Yeah. Just ask Tony Bullimore.

[Zone-5]

In Australia, we all get premium rescue service without regard for the cost.

So I wonder how many times you can use it? 5 maybe 15 times a year, every year...

[neilmny]

No I'm not advocating leaving anyone anywhere but if I needed rescue I would want it without regard to the cost unless I was suicidal...

In Australia, we all get premium rescue service without regard for the cost.

Yeah. Just ask Tony Bullimore.

And there in lies the point it is a rescue service. Not meant to be just for those that are rich and can afford it.
.........so lets see now........ship wreck..........excuse me get out of the life boat it's only for the people with
insurance.............plane crash.............sorry leave those survivors and just take the ones with insurance.......

[north-north-west]

In Australia, we all get premium rescue service without regard for the cost.

So I wonder how many times you can use it? 5 maybe 15 times a year, every year...

There are people with chronic health conditions who have ambulance/paramedic assistance rendered on a regular basis. I don't see how a rescue service is any different.
Naturally we have a responsibility not to put ourselves into foolishly dangerous situations without regard for the consequences. But accidents do happen, things do go wrong, and we are a sufficiently advanced and compassionate society as to regard the consideration of every individual's safety paramount.

[political rant]Except refugees, of course. Them there boat people don't count.[/political rant]

[jimjim]

From the perspective of one who works in emergency medical care I would rather any day assist someone who has come unstuck while experiencing the great wide world as opposed to someone with big Mac overdose. Those of us who go out in the wilds are reducing societies overall burden of disease and therefor costs to society.

[madmacca]

[political rant]Except refugees, of course. Them there boat people don't count.[/political rant]

Actually, refugees ARE rescued if they are in peril at sea. And at no charge. They just aren't given resettlement rights in Australia.

There is a legitmate discussion around the treatment of refugees, but let's not imply that Australia fails to rescue them.

[Zone-5]

And there in lies the point it is a rescue service. Not meant to be just for those that are rich and can afford it.
.........so lets see now........ship wreck..........excuse me get out of the life boat it's only for the people with
insurance.............plane crash.............sorry leave those survivors and just take the ones with insurance.......

That is a gross distortion of what is being discussed here...

I have that insurance cover but I don't expect to ever use it or get any preferential treatment above any service provided.

I am happy to help fund the after costs so that I'm not a burden on those rescue services costs or those of the taxpayer.

I manage my own risk and I choose to take the appropriate insurance covers to manage that risk effectively.

[Strider]

[political rant]Except refugees, of course. Them there boat people don't count.[/political rant]

Actually, refugees ARE rescued if they are in peril at sea. And at no charge. They just aren't given resettlement rights in Australia.

There is a legitmate discussion around the treatment of refugees, but let's not imply that Australia fails to rescue them.

Did you miss the images leaked last week of Australian naval vessels moored at Manus Island while Myanmar refugees were knowingly being rescued by other nations.

[Zone-5]

There are people with chronic health conditions who have ambulance/paramedic assistance rendered on a regular basis. I don't see how a rescue service is any different.

I totally agree!

Outpatient ambulance services are not free. You would know this if you have ever used it.

Responsible people have separate insurances to deal with the costs of those services else you pay for those services at full cost. Don't believe me then ring St. John Ambulance service and ask them yourself.

That is the reality! Pay a smaller amount over along time in insurance or else pay it up big afterwards when the bill comes in.

[madmacca]

[political rant]Except refugees, of course. Them there boat people don't count.[/political rant]

Actually, refugees ARE rescued if they are in peril at sea. And at no charge. They just aren't given resettlement rights in Australia.

There is a legitmate discussion around the treatment of refugees, but let's not imply that Australia fails to rescue them.

Did you miss the images leaked last week of Australian naval vessels moored at Manus Island while Myanmar refugees were knowingly being rescued by other nations.

No. Armidale class, as I recall. 300t standard load.

The distance from Manus Island to the Andaman Sea is approximately 3200 nm.
The maximum range of an Armidale Class boat is 3000 nm.
The cruising speed of an Armidale class boat to get that maximum range is 12 kn. ie. It would take 11 days for it to get there.

Compassion is good, but lets be practical about distance.

Below is a map of Australia's Maritime Search and Rescue Zone. It's pretty damn huge, but it doesn't include the Andaman Sea.

australian maritime search and rescue zone.png (97.19 KiB) Viewed 21241 times

[gedanate]

It might make good sense to encourage all hikers, campers and bushwalkers to carry an emergency UHF Personal Loctor Beacon by giving them some discount in the cost of their rescue and evacuation. These can even be signed for a borrowed from the police in Sydney's Blue Mountains, for example. Those who cannot be bothered with taking precautions or insurance will then pay more. What do you think?

[neilmny]

And there in lies the point it is a rescue service. Not meant to be just for those that are rich and can afford it.
.........so lets see now........ship wreck..........excuse me get out of the life boat it's only for the people with
insurance.............plane crash.............sorry leave those survivors and just take the ones with insurance.......

That is a gross distortion of what is being discussed here...

I have that insurance cover but I don't expect to ever use it or get any preferential treatment above any service provided.

I am happy to help fund the after costs so that I'm not a burden on those rescue services costs or those of the taxpayer.

I manage my own risk and I choose to take the appropriate insurance covers to manage that risk effectively.

As far as a distortion is concerned we will have to agree to disagree.....you are suggesting that people should have rescue
insurance....and what if they don't......just leave them there unless it can be proven that they can pay the fees that will
arise from a rescue. I refer back to the point rescue service is not just for those that can afford it, it is a rescue service.
Clearly you can afford it but many can't. I do have rescue insurance in my Ambulance Victoria subsciption.

[Zone-5]

It might make good sense to encourage all hikers, campers and bushwalkers to carry an emergency UHF Personal Loctor Beacon by giving them some discount in the cost of their rescue and evacuation. These can even be signed for a borrowed from the police in Sydney's Blue Mountains, for example. Those who cannot be bothered with taking precautions or insurance will then pay more. What do you think?

Or simply get insured before your next wilderness trek...

Most of us here who actually place a value on our lives carry some sort of PLB and hope they never have to use it. But if we do have to initiate a rescue call then we are also very thankful that the call service is available.

Similarly we should all take out some form of rescue insurance hoping again to never have to use it! If by the off chance we need rescuing then by having insurance those organisations can be benefited from the fact that they are being properly funded by concerned individuals that truly value their expensive services. By having rescue insurance we are actually supporting our rescuer organisations by placing a higher value on their services than that given by the government.

Yeah ok so it's free, but if someone saves your life wouldn't you want them to be adequately funded for their efforts for the next person!

[Zone-5]

As far as a distortion is concerned we will have to agree to disagree.....you are suggesting that people should have rescue
insurance....and what if they don't......just leave them there unless it can be proven that they can pay the fees that will
arise from a rescue. I refer back to the point rescue service is not just for those that can afford it, it is a rescue service.
Clearly you can afford it but many can't. I do have rescue insurance in my Ambulance Victoria subsciption.

NO, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

I never said that at all and what you are suggesting here are all your own BS words, not mine!

What I'm saying is that while the service is provided free, for those who can afford it they should be encouraged to contribute to the costs associated with their rescue and the best way to help accommodate this generally is with the appropriate insurance cover!

[photohiker]

No, I think you are wrong.

Handing money over to an insurance company is a very meager way of supporting a rescue operation. A better way is to hand over a significant donation after the rescue event. This directly supports the organization involved and avoids throwing cash into the insurance company's coffers.

[vicrev]

No, I think you are wrong.

Handing money over to an insurance company is a very meager way of supporting a rescue operation. A better way is to hand over a significant donation after the rescue event. This directly supports the organization involved and avoids throwing cash into the insurance company's coffers.

Whoa!!....the rescue provider claims the cost from the insurance provider,don't they?.......only a fool drives a car,lives in a house,without insurance cover,what is the difference between that & travel/rescue insurance?.....they are a bunch of sharks,but,without cover,it is the same as Russian roulette,with about the same odds.....

[photohiker]

No, I think you are wrong.

Handing money over to an insurance company is a very meager way of supporting a rescue operation. A better way is to hand over a significant donation after the rescue event. This directly supports the organization involved and avoids throwing cash into the insurance company's coffers.

Whoa!!....the rescue provider claims the cost from the insurance provider,don't they?.......only a fool drives a car,lives in a house,without insurance cover,what is the difference between that & travel/rescue insurance?.....they are a bunch of sharks,but,without cover,it is the same as Russian roulette,with about the same odds.....

I'm talking specifically about emergency rescue operations, not about car or any other insurance, so please do not pull straw man arguments. Emergency rescue is a free service in Australia, Ambulance is not, and if you do not have Ambulance subscription or insurance via your private health insurance, you do have to pay for an Ambulance trip.

So emergency rescue is free. If you are paying insurance for it then unless you are paying for a higher class of service, you're probably wasting your premium. Overseas is different, and in some places, the only way you will get out is by medevac at very high costs, so it is definitely worth carrying insurance overseas.

[north-north-west]

.......only a fool drives a car, lives in a house, without insurance cover.....

Or people who simply can't afford it. Maybe I should reprioritise. Not like I need to eat, after all . . .

[vicrev]

Best of luck, to people who choose not to take out insurance......

[photohiker]

Best of luck, to people who choose not to take out insurance......

Insurance for what? Are you still feeding the straw man?

[vicrev]

Best of luck, to people who choose not to take out insurance......

Insurance for what? Are you still feeding the straw man?

Can't afford to feed this.." Straw Man"..of yours, have to pay for insurance.....(who is this "Straw Man".?.& where does he live ? hope he's covered by insurance)..

[Travis22]

Best of luck, to people who choose not to take out insurance......

Best of luck for what?

The way this whole conversation has gone is just strange for a discussion on rescues based in Australia.

Travis.

[photohiker]

Best of luck, to people who choose not to take out insurance......

Insurance for what? Are you still feeding the straw man?

Can't afford to feed this.." Straw Man"..of yours, have to pay for insurance.....(who is this "Straw Man".?.& where does he live ? hope he's covered by insurance)..

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

I pointed out that Ambulance, car, house, life, etc Insurance is not in the same class as Rescue Insurance. Rescue is free in Australia, and insurance is not required. When you need an Ambulance trip and you have no insurance, you will get a hefty bill. When you require emergency rescue you will NOT get a bill.

Your straw man arrived when you lumped these together despite knowing that Rescue Insurance is not required and used other forms of insurance to suggest that there is a problem not taking out rescue insurance. There is none. It is a free public service.