Mandatory Evacuation: Should People Who Get Rescued Be Charged? (crime, military, dollars)

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by katygirl68

I know, it was chaos. There was no reason for people fifty miles inland to evacuate. Mandatory evacuations now go pretty smoothly.

And many are not needed.

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by johnp292

No.

Creating laws that penalize people for using emergency services, even when they do stupid things, has the unintended consequence of causing people who truly need help - often at no fault of their own - to not call because they are afraid they will be penalized or shamed for doing so. I am a former EMT and countless times heard people tell me they delayed calling for help because they were afraid they didn’t really need it or would get charged for it (our services were free) or were embarrassed. Sometimes people die because of this.

Here in Arizona there is such a law (the Stupid Motorist Law) that allows a person who drives around barricades into a flooded roadway to be charged up to $2000 for the cost of his rescue. Although it’s popular, it has almost never been used and some larger agencies have publicly stated they will not charge people. There’s been some discussion recently about creating a ‘Stupid Hiker Law’ with the same premise, to charge hikers who need rescuing due to heat related emergencies. The rescue services are opposed to this. No reasonable human being wants to see someone die as a result of their own stupidity.

I served in an area that has frequent flooding issues (not in AZ) and it was a regular occurrence that people needed to be rescued because they refused to leave their homes. It’s frustrating, but it’s a fact of human nature that some people do this. And we go get them every time. It’s part of the job.

Excellent post!

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by Floorist

And many are not needed.

True!

[Floorist]

Many times the potential severity of storms is grossly over exaggerated.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by johnp292

So that a profit driven entity can decide if its in their best interests to provide a high level of service?

No thanks.

Profit= reward for a job well done
Loss=punishment for not satifying customers

Govt run= No profit, no loss, just budget. when the budget is used up rationing or discontinuation of service takes place. Much of budget is spent supporting administrative costs and not actual service. Typically two to one over comparable private sector service.
No performance reward and inefficiency/ shoddy service is typically rewarded by way of an increase in budget.

Yeah I can see why you'd want to advocate for guv run.

[crone]

A friend worked as a FEMA inspector the years Florida had all those storms. The friend informed us all the property he looked at that was around 10 miles from the coast and not subject to the surge was wind damaged. But evacuation was not needed when you are miles from the surge risk. Tornadoes and rising water from rivers and bayous are another thing and could happen anywhere.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

What about all the taxes that person has paid?

I am certainly not for privatization (in most cases), but it should be noted that most ALL Americans pay less in taxes than their "cost" - hence, debt and deficit of the government.

So, no, you didn't build that. It's built but the congress critters and supporters of tax cuts have put the bill onto our kids and grand kids.

The real answer is, as usual, very simple....

1. Higher taxes.
2. Insurance (regulated)....

Ever since I studied Wall Street I have come to the conclusion that people (humans) have a tendency to make simple things complicated. Note all those various charts and terms that Wall Street uses....despite that fact that a monkey throwing darts at the stock page beats their averages......

Coalitions between government and industry can work out most problems. I'll give a perfect example - Auto Insurance!

2 decades ago, in NJ, I was paying about 3K per year for 2-3 cars and 2-3 drivers (2 adults, one young adult - nothing fancy in cars). Using inflation, that would be 7K or more today.

Yet I am paying only 1200 a year now for 2 adults and two cars in New England. Wow....that's like an 80% reduction! But why????

Math. Regulation. In NJ, there was not enough regs and everyone sued everyone else. The load was not distributed, so if you got in an accident you paid big time....for years (sometimes forever).

In MA, the insurance commission made a number of smart moves (other states have also done so) including limits, doing away with frivolous lawsuits and awards AND, most importantly, limits (like the ACA and RomneyCare, etc.) on the profit margin of insurance companies.

And so, those people (lawyers, cheaters and lazy folks) who formerly made their living suing people for a 5MPH fender bender are no longer successful. But "The People" are happy and prosperous.

I have health insurance. I have car insurance. I have boat insurance. I have umbrella insurance. I have homeowners insurance...and I pay plenty in taxes. All of the above help with the "common good" - and make it so I don't have to worry much if and when I need "saving".

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by LauraC

Should people in a mandatory evacuation area who refused to leave be charged a flat fine if they have to be rescued?

When a child is killed as the result of a natural disaster, should a parent in a mandatory evacuation area who refused to leave, be charged with criminally negligent homicide?

The number one reason most don't evacuate is they are too poor or in too poor health to. Now you want to penalize them for their inability. Classy!

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...cane-florence/

[elan]

" Mandatory Evacuation: Should People Who Get Rescued Be Charged?"

No.

[crone]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Profit= reward for a job well done
Loss=punishment for not satifying customers

Govt run= No profit, no loss, just budget. when the budget is used up rationing or discontinuation of service takes place. Much of budget is spent supporting administrative costs and not actual service. Typically two to one over comparable private sector service.
No performance reward and inefficiency/ shoddy service is typically rewarded by way of an increase in budget.

Yeah I can see why you'd want to advocate for guv run.

What if I pay for private service but am in an area that is not supported by that private provider? Do I just die, wait for them to locate a provider of their choice? How would that work?