Rescue insurance, do you have it?

[vicrev]

The thread question, did not define Australia,it read like a generalisation of rescue insurance, wherever.....Rescue insurance,do you have it ?......pretty plain question...all I am saying is,,, Insurance is insurance,car ,house ,whatever & is advisable...I do not know why this straw man has been bought into this discussion about rescue insurance
I find that quite strange.....

[photohiker]

Please read my reply from earlier in the thread. I specifically define the differences between Australia nd Overseas.

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.

[GBW]

Is this the right room for an argument?

I have Ambulance Subscription...hopefully that's enough...and I don't mind if my tax dollars go towards saving someone elses life.

[neilmny]

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!

Mate you really need to take a breathe relax and re read what I wrote.

You did suggest that people should have rescue insurance and in your words to take the burden off the tax payer.
This may not be verbatim but I can't be bothered back tracking to get the exact words. They are not worthy of the time.

The rest of my comment was to question the consequences of having a class of people with rescue insurance and a class of people who do not. No BS as you put it, in that as far as I can see.
Perhaps you can come up with a more intelligent rebuttle than just saying that my comment is BS.
Rescue is for all not just the rich and as GBW said I am also happy for my tax payer dollars to help provide it.

If I was to apply money to the rescue service it would be by a direct donation not into the grubby hands of an insurance company.

[vicrev]

Photohiker..Ivé just read all the posts & I really do not know why & what we are arguing about exactly...... ....

[photohiker]

Photohiker..Ivé just read all the posts & I really do not know why & what we are arguing about exactly...... ....

Here it is:

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....

Apparently anyone without rescue insurance is some kind of fool. Inflammatory, don't you think?

I agree that if we're hiking in remote areas overseas we should have insurance, but there is no need in Australia.

[vicrev]

[/quote]

Apparently anyone without rescue insurance is some kind of fool. Inflammatory, don't you think [/quote].............No..

[Strider]

If I was to apply money to the rescue service it would be by a direct donation not into the grubby hands of an insurance company.

Neil, I agree with you on this. But only partially.

If an insurance company pays out - the entire cost of the rescue is covered.

If you make a direct donation - only a portion of the cost of the rescue is covered. Unless you paid off the total over time, I guess.

[vicrev]

How much (in dollars) does a rescue cost,approx. ?.....

[neilmny]

How much (in dollars) does a rescue cost,approx. ?.....

That is unable to be answered vicrev....so much depends on where, how difficult, how many etc. etc.
But rest assured it a lot.

[vicrev]

Thanks,neilmny,just thought one of the number crunchers might have done a approximation.........

[Zone-5]

Look guys, lets not argue please. The reason why I started this thread was to promote an extra funding model for our rescue teams, not replace it.

I'm not saying that there should be any change to the current system, far from it.

All I'm suggesting is that to help out with the costs of a rescue and to reduce the complete reliance on the public purse that those of us who could afford to might like to consider some form of private insurance even if there is no requirement to do so. I'm sure that those extra funds provided to our rescue services over and above the nominal government funds might help for a better and broader service.

I'm actually quite gladdened by the fact that all those here who are seemingly arguing against it they have themselves some form of extra rescue insurance anyway!

It's like medicare for me, everyone is covered under medicare and everyone is admitted to hospital as a public patient initially and everything is ultimately paid for by the government without exception. But as I can afford it I have private medical cover because I personally believe that the tax payer should not have to pay exclusively for all my bills. If I need rescuing I personally will feel better that the costs of my rescue will be offset by the funds I have set aside by way of a private insurance policy specifically for Medivac/rescue. I'll still get rescued anyway but after wards I can offer them a cost offset, a donation of such by way of an insurance payout to them which means ultimately more money for the rescue services. A win-win.

The thread is to simply find out if others here feel the same way. Not to argue the merits of a free or user pays system like the rest of the world has but as a compliment to the existing system in Australia.

In Australia rescue services are free, but is it so hard to even consider some form of personal private insurance to help with the associated costs to service providers over and above the government contribution?

Don't get me wrong, I want to be rescued no matter what! But at the end of the day I would feel much better about it if I could contribute in a meaningful way to the cost recovery of my rescue.

Anyway, I'll continue to pay the addition to my general personal accident insurance policy and I'll continue to feel the "I'm not a burden on society" better for it...

[vicrev]

Well said,Zone5.......

[Travis22]

Id be interested to hear from anyone who has been rescued in Australia - where you asked post rescue if you had insurance they could claim on?

Are the rescue services like our public hospitals where by if you are treated in a public hospital they still ask if you have private insurance and if so they will make a claim on that.

Personally with regards to the hospital comparison, i dont see the cover being remotely similar. We have private hospital cover so we can use private hospitals for the benefits within not to continue using the public system.

Travis.

[Zone-5]

Well well well, that's where we differ in ideals Travis!

You have private health insurance solely to access better services.

I have private health insurance because I don't believe the poor schmuck taxpayer should have to foot 'my' bills when 'I' get sick.

My same sentiment extends to the rescue services, all of them!

[icefest]

I have private health insurance because I don't believe the poor schmuck taxpayer should have to foot 'my' bills when 'I' get sick.

Well, they still do.

Having private health cover sometimes even allows you to "cut the queue" in front of public patients - and some of your costs are still paid for by medicare.

http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthi ... iscovered/

[Zone-5]

I have private health insurance because I don't believe the poor schmuck taxpayer should have to foot 'my' bills when 'I' get sick.

Well, they still do.

Having private health cover sometimes even allows you to "cut the queue" in front of public patients - and some of your costs are still paid for by medicare.

http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthi ... iscovered/

...point taken...

[Allchin09]

If you feel like donating to someone after a rescue, why not support a volunteer organisation such as the Bushwalkers Wilderness Rescue Service http://www.bwrs.org.au/ who have been assisting lost and injured bushwalkers since 1936!

Zone-5. I am a little confused as to your intent regarding this topic. You have said that:

I'm not saying that there should be any change to the current system, far from it.

All I'm suggesting is that to help out with the costs of a rescue and to reduce the complete reliance on the public purse that those of us who could afford to might like to consider some form of private insurance even if there is no requirement to do so. I'm sure that those extra funds provided to our rescue services over and above the nominal government funds might help for a better and broader service.

I agree that there would be benefits to people providing funds to the emergency services, but I don't think that this should be directly linked with rescues. Would it not be better to provide funds regardless of whether you require rescue or not? Have you considered other alternatives to taking out insurance may that may better support the rescue service?

I also believe that contributions should be completely voluntary. Bushwalking should be enjoyed by all, and should not be restricted by ones financial status.

What confuses me is your initial thread post.

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!

The way that I initially read it was that you are suggesting people either take out an insurance policy that covers rescues, or pay for before heading out into the bush. I'm guessing for your latter posts that this wasn't quite your intention?

[Zone-5]

Also, check out Geos Alliance. It's a rescue benefit, not really insurance.

http://www.geosalliance.com/geos-servic ... nd-rescue/

The Indiviudal SAR benefit membership is available to all owners/users of GEOS supported devices.

Coverage under this plan extends to only one individual at a cost of $17.95 annually.

A prepaid private Medical Evacuation membership program as well as a prepaid private Search and Rescue benefit membership program. Maybe if more people in Australia knew about this it might help reduce the costs to the tax payer for rescues here in Australia. A thought anyway...

[neilmny]

Oh the poor tax payer................I've been paying tax for 44 years and nearly all of us pay them so whats the point.
I want something for my taxes and it is something I hope I never need.
God knows people my age get stuff all else benefits from our taxes.

Are you by any chance an insurance broker/salesperson Zone-5?............the only people in my many years of experience who talk of insurance with such enthusiasm have been insurance brokers or salespersons.

[Zone-5]

...people in my many years of experience who talk of insurance with such enthusiasm have been insurance brokers or salespersons.

Neither and Neil surely with your onerous jibes and lack of acumen beyond anything but the fanciful reflects more truly upon your own sad situation, than mine...

[neilmny]

...people in my many years of experience who talk of insurance with such enthusiasm have been insurance brokers or salespersons.

Neither and Neil surely with your onerous jibes and lack of acumen beyond anything but the fanciful reflects more truly upon your own sad situation, than mine...

Far from fanciful your enthusiasm for promoting this insurance product is very clear.
I have no idea what the rest of your reply means but no need to explain as I doubt you are capable of discussing anything with anyone who doesn't agree with you without going for the throat.

[vicrev]

Steady down fellas..... ....be nice........

[sim1oz]

Wow, this topic got a little heated. But it did get me thinking...

Zone-5, I understand your desire for people to take responsibility for themselves, but the reality is that not everyone does. Personally, I'm glad that our rescue services in Australia are available for all and wouldn't want cost recovery standing in the way of a person's life being saved. Anyone (whether they have the skills, knowhow and appropriate gear, or not) can go for a bushwalk with very little upfront cost and the health benefits of walking in natural settings are widely recognised. I just wouldn't want some sort of bushwalking 'charge' to discourage people from getting out there. I don't know what the statistics are, but suspect that a good proportion of rescues are not for regular bushwalkers, and yet these others are exactly the sort of people who will benefit from getting out there more often to improve their fitness and build up their bushwalking skills.

As a family, we minimise the risks (and costs) by taking a PLB with us, and on more remote walks we take other forms of communication - in order to take the search component out of a potential rescue. We've also done first aid, communication, and survival training, and do our best to make sure that we will never need to be be rescued.

I already pay my tax, and a small fortune on various insurances (including ambulance). I'm really not interested in contributing any more to the insurance industry. In three generations of my family, we have only ever used an ambulance once so the annual charge various family members pay would have covered the ambulance trip cost many times over (time value of money!). I would much rather make an annual donation to support the search and rescue volunteers who give so much of their time freely and are used, often extensively, by employed and paid rescue services (eg. boy recently lost near Lake Eildon). That extra money into their budgets will stretch a lot further than feeding more into the finance/insurance industry who will only pay up if the specific person insured needs rescue otherwise the insurance premium goes straight to their bottom line.

If people want to donate to the volunteer rescue groups, here are links for Vic and NSW (other states, just google):

Vic http://www.bsar.org/donations
NSW http://www.bwrs.org.au/?q=fundraising

When I am overseas I always take out travel insurance, plus our PLB and a SPOT/satphone. The GEO insurance sounds interesting. I'll check my travel insurance policy more carefully next time I'm outside Australia. So far common sense, experience and good luck have kept us safe.

I guess, ultimately, this is a philosophical question of whether we should move to a completely user-pays society, or whether there are some things that are better funded by collecting taxes. I'm not sure we'll ever get everyone to agree on that.

If you are saying that visitors from overseas should have some sort of travel insurance before we let them in, then I might be persuaded But really, I'd like to know the facts and statistics behind rescues before jumping to any one 'solution'.

[icefest]

A prepaid private Medical Evacuation membership program as well as a prepaid private Search and Rescue benefit membership program. Maybe if more people in Australia knew about this it might help reduce the costs to the tax payer for rescues here in Australia. A thought anyway...

That's not correct. GEOS only pay if there is not a public service available - which there is here.'

I can't seen to find where you got photohiker's original quote about it from.

[photohiker]

I can't seen to find where you got photohiker's original quote about it from.

Not surprising, he copied it from another thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20237

[Azza]

Financial reports from AMSA - who are the ones that pay out if you active a PLB.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-public ... asp?num=48

So $186 million a year cost to tax payers isn't much when you considering the amount of money spent on Medicare or wasted on other less worthy uses of tax payer money.
I know that doesn't include state funded costs.

[north-north-west]

So $186 million a year cost to tax payers ....

I'd rather my taxes went to that than paying off Joe Hockey's wife's investment property mortgages.

[Azza]

So $186 million a year cost to tax payers ....

I'd rather my taxes went to that than paying off Joe Hockey's wife's investment property mortgages.

Melissa Babbage - an investment banker, later head of foreign exchange and global finance at Deutsche Bank.
Joe forgot to mention the other option for affording a house in Sydney... marry someone who already has lots of money.

[Zone-5]

Apparently my/our/your taxes are paying for both!