Upscale wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:39 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
I do not want to denigrate the girl's accomplishments, but who is
paying for the rescue efforts now?

Hopefully, the services which have already been funded by taxes will
simply exercise their tax funded capabilities. No point in having
them, paying for them, if they can't be used.

Don't agree. If everybody decided to knowingly go on such a dangerous
trip, (and many experienced sailors advised of the danger beforehand)
then tax services would be stretched much more than they are now. If
her parents had the money to fund such a trip, then they should be
obligated to provide surety for rescue expenses up front as well.

Very true in that *if* everyone decided to task the forces, it would be
overbearing, but in reality that never happens. It's always put forward as
a fear, but that fear never materializes. Sorta makes it a moot point.
Rescue teams are just that, and they are created for just that purpose. We
already (the collective we) pay for that service. Why should someone pay
for utilizing a service that is already funded and exists just for that
purpose?


At the very least, they should have taken out some form of insurance
to cover rescue costs.

I would not disagree with that on one hand, but I'd probably want to delve
into that idea a little deeper. I might see the reasoning in defining some
basic life saving rescue that is provided by services in existence, but any
additional services such as securing the boat, or whatever, being outside of
that basic rescue provision.

--

-Mike-