I'm really glad you made this thread; I've had my own thoughts brewing ever since the December incident and I'm absolutely furious with the media coverage and portrayal of the climbing community.
The broad suggestion that climbers be billed for rescues as a general practice is absolutely naive and if it were implemented would yield catastrophic consequences.
First of all, let's not forget that SAR teams are run by volunteers; these are people who go out willingly looking to help other climbers. They're all climbers themselves, and they wouldn't be doing the SAR if they didn't believe in the cause, so the argument that you're putting them at risk holds no water, because they are there by their own volition not only as a member of a SAR team, but on a per-incident basis.
Second, are we genuinely prepared to deny rescue coverage to those who can't afford it--whether their mistakes result from stupidity or just bad luck? I acknowledge that a mountaineering accident is not inherently analogous to a housefire, but if some idiot leaves the stove on overnight and his house burns down, it's not like the fire department isn't going to put it out.
Third, do we really want to legislate a measure that will convince stranded climbers not to call for help? When somebody is literally in a life-and-death situation, do we really want them weighing the pros and cons before attempting to contact a rescue team?
When I go climbing or mountaineering, I acknowledge the risks as best I can and accept the consequences of those that I take. Even when I have a locater beacon with me, I never take a risk that I wouldn't take without it. But if I do have a beacon with me and I find myself in a dire position, why in the world would I not use it? Going back to argument #1, the authorities and rescuers can and will decide for themselves whether or not to come get me. If there's a bad storm, they're going to wait it out anyway. I see absolutely nothing wrong with initiating a rescue, regardless of why it became necessary, so long as it is indeed necessary.
Lastly, from an economic standpoint, "if it ain't broke..." It's not as if large sums of our hard-earned tax dollars are being redirected from critical national security measures. A friend at YOSAR told me that even when the military is involved directly that they don't mind helping out in the least. It's good PR, it's good practice for their helicopter pilots, and the expense within the defense budget is negligable.
If people genuinely believe that climbers ought to be billed for rescues, then those people need to make their case, because frankly I don't see it.