[kenhwang]

In one instance, yes, for simply getting so lost in the mountains in a state park that they decided it was best to call SAR when provisions ran out after dark. Dispatch routed the rescue request to the closest city fire department, they came out with a helicopter. City then left them with the bill for the helicopter (which was covered by health insurance as medical transport minus the deductible), and fines for trespassing (they weren't supposed go off marked trails) and staying in the park after closing/dark.

[throwawaylinux]

Oh, SAR will "creatively adjust" the incident report when people have health insurance, so that they can bill them for a medical emergency and have their insurance cover it? Sounds like fraud.

[kenhwang]

SAR doesn't care about whether you have insurance. They simply stick you with a bill if they think you were negligent or the situation shouldn't have happened if there was adequate preparation and/or skill.

Then you, the rescued, file a claim with whatever insurance you think is appropriate and make your case. Maybe insurance investigates and looks up the SAR incident report, maybe they don't. Either way SAR isn't part of any alleged insurance fraud.

[throwawaylinux]

you said this:

> The SAR might be technically "free", but they'll categorize as many things under "medical emergency" as possible and throw the book of fines at you.

And then seemed to imply that's what they did when someone just got lost. Okay they will do it regardless if you have insurance or not, still fraud isn't it?

[kenhwang]

There's generally a medical component to SAR. If you don't need medical attention or weren't at risk of needing medical attention, what's the rush?

Search is trivial if you're calling in help yourself since just about any device that can call for help will communicate where you are. Gets more complicated for a wide area search called in by someone else though, because that is expensive; but then the target's medical condition is unknown and likely assumed to be for the worst.

If you're completely healthy but in need of rescue eventually, they'll dispatch some better equipped volunteers to retrace your steps and rescue you out of whatever situation you're in.

One time our rope caught on something after we released it, so we couldn't ascend to unstick it, but couldn't descend further without the rope. That would've been a SAR call if there wasn't another group above us that could partially descend on their rope and unstick our rope for us. But it would've been a trivial rescue since we could've reasonably survived stuck on the shaded alcove for a couple days until we got another rope. A ranger or volunteer would've been dispatched to unstick the rope or with their own for us to use, not a helicopter to extract us out.

It's when there's an immediate risk to life, that's what causes urgency, which is the main driver for cost because then typically helicopters are involved. If they itemize by search, rescue, and medical, why wouldn't medical greatly dominate the costs?

[throwawaylinux]

> There's generally a medical component to SAR. If you don't need medical attention or weren't at risk of needing medical attention, what's the rush?

"At risk of needing medical attention", e.g., dying of thirst of exposure after a few days when you're lost, is not a medical emergency though. This isn't even some esoteric legalize it's just obvious common sense. You were talking about things like just getting lost, and SAR trying to file as much as they possibly can under "medical emergency". Definitely sounds like fraud.