There is something inherently wrong with the concept that I need insurance or god help us a permit to walk in the woods. In its simplest form that is what we are talking about. An insurance policy or permit for walking.
Have humans, or is just the US, devolved to the point that they can't even walk without insurance or a permit?
Am I the only one that finds this absolutely grotesque?
Keith
Oh, I agree 100%.
That said I do work within the insurance sector, I don't think we'd want to touch it unless we made money at it. (what every for-profit business is trying to do, whether you sell shoelaces, flower, pets or food)
The best way to keep cost down is to have many people purchase it. If only say, 100,000 hikers purchase it at $10. a year, it's a million. How many SAR a year? Accidents in Moutainerring are just a fraction of SAR, as mentioned the Lear Jet & the young boy near Lincoln were two of the costliest & neither would have bought a policy. "What, no policy, sorry, can't look for you, do SAR take the same oath as MD's? (No but I know they want to help people, not collect policy information)
Don't think people who have little or no exposure to the woods or parks would buy it. Do you add it to all Homowner and condo policies for $20.00 and include coverage for the fee some towns & cities across America are trying to collect for responding to a rescue call? (most cases they are repealing or have issues because that's part of your tax bill) again, your adding a layer of administration in order to collect premium from everyone & then redistribute it. Whoever is doing the redistribution will want to make a profit or at least cover their cost which includes salaries and health insurance for employees.
An additional fee of $1.00 on say rooms within 50 miles of a USFS, State or Federal Park or rec area might be an idea. How do you mandate that the $1.00 stays out of the general funds of states, municipalities & a federal gov't wrestling with unfunded pensions, SS and other debts? (many have taken the $$$$$ from tobacco legislation intended for healthcare cost & anti-smoking campaigns & rolled it into the General fund, same with Lotto proceeds which in some states were supposed to be earmarked for education)
In a White Mt. example, if Gorham & N. Conway provide 65% of the trucks, ambulances, etc & the State of NH through F&G cover 35% I understand why they might take a surplus out of a pool for SAR cost, if the hiking community is good for a few months, to help cover other costs. (I don't agree with it but if they collect it they fund some of the SAR cost, I see why they think they can spend the tax dollars as they see fit.)
In the end, consumers pick up the tab, which ones? Are out of State hikers at BSP unfairly charged? Do some of the ME taxes actually support the park? I just raise the question, I don't care to see the annual budget for BSP
(out of state fishing & hunting licenses are more expensive than in state in likely all states)
In Florida, Citizens Insurance (the state funded insurer covering many coastal residents at rates that the industry think are unsound) recently raised rates on average 10% It varied on loacation & what your house is used for. If you rent your home, to others, (it's a second home or income producing property - hopefully) that rate went up the most, the cost will be added to next year's rents. In most cases, they are out of state renters who don't vote for any Florida politicians, it was a safe move politically to try & shore up their insurance pool.
How will costs for SAR be allocated back to the consumers? Insurance or fees collected by Govt.?
When one makes a profit & pays a bonus for running it efficiently, (rates too high?, what is a sufficent ROE?) the management would likely get lambasted in the press for salaries & denying claims. The other entity, IMO has not proven to be good fiscal managers. (Pay 8% for 25-30 years & get back 60-75% of the highest three years for life? With people living longer than ever, 60-75% may be paid out longer than the 8% was paid in)
