Hacker News Reader

Comment by whartung | Hacker News Reader

Well that’s the GPS point. Make this more casually available and folks are likely to more casually use it.

The problem for the teams isn’t necessarily finding the party, we’ve had these beacons for years. Rather they have to climb into the mountains in the first place to solve what could have, ostensibly, been readily prevented.

Thus taxing a limited resource even further.

What should temper that is now there perhaps may be signs posted telling folks about the service, and that help is available (or not) but it’s likely going to be rather expensive if they have to come get you. It’s never been suggested that while the S&R teams maybe volunteer, as I understand the rescued party incurs costs of the operation.

View on HN

You can be given a bill in some places under a limited set of circumstances but you mostly won't get charged as I understand it (at least until you get into the regular medical system per usual). I would assume if this started to become a real problem, you might see more charging--although I assume S&R teams wouldn't, for the most part, want people in trouble to hold off on calling for help because they might get a $10K bill.

It depends on who shows up. Not every call is going to get a full blown SAR response, and a lot of the country doesn't even have SAR teams anyway.

You'll get the local 911 response units, and it might be a Sheriff's deputy, fire, or EMS.

If you're in California you're also likely to get a rescue helicopter operated by CHP, and if they pluck you out of a ravine, the bill is $zero. Really, it's taxpayer funded. We operate with them quite often.

Actually, in many places in the United States, SAR calls don't cost you anything.

Usually it's the ambulance / helicopter ride. But even then, there are helicopter operators (like the U.S. military, which responds to many SAR calls where I live) that don't charge.

At least in Germany I know that the perspective on this is that you never want someone to even think about taking cost into consideration when they decide to make an emergency call.

In the US there are people who drive to the emergency room and wait outside in the parking lot to see if they get better or if they really need to go inside. Some of those people have insurance but would pay a deductible.

I don't have data to support this, but I guess that at least 40% of Americans would agree with the statement, "I take cost into consideration when I make a call to emergency services."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com