posted on September 17, 2002 04:00:41 PM new
One thing I don't know is, are the families still eligible for compensation even if they had life insurance policies? And does this compensation come from donations?
posted on September 17, 2002 04:07:46 PM new
I think Reamond is speaking of just the federal compensation fund, which doesn't include all the private monies that are/were being disbursed.
If they take the lump sum from the federal fund pay-out, life insurance and pensions are deducted from the amount. They don't seem to be too happy about this...
posted on September 17, 2002 04:42:41 PM new
Thanks Julesy! So they're being paid a certain amount by the government so they won't sue? If they did sue, let's say, would they have a chance of winning?
posted on September 17, 2002 04:53:42 PM new
Yes, if they take the federal money, they waive their right to sue various entities including the airlines. I think only a minor amount of people have taken the money so far.
I guess they would have a chance, but I imagine it would take many years to resolve.
posted on September 18, 2002 02:21:36 AM new
I think the families should be compensated, but should they be given amounts that would equal the entire earnings and benefits for the working life of the person killed ?
One of the young widows with a new born was upset that she couldn't keep her $500,000 house and may have to seek employment sometime in the future if the compensation wasn't high enough in order to keep the $500,000 house.
What is owed these folks ? Enough money to never have to work the rest of their lives ?
What about workers that are killed or disabled at work ? They barely get enough compensation to live on. What about people who are killed or injured by criminal acts ? Why should they get any less than the 9-11 victims ?
It sometimes seems as though these people think they hit a once in a lifetime lottery and want to hit for all that they can.
posted on September 18, 2002 04:27:37 AM new
Those who feel entitled feel entitled to everything they can get. I feel that the people who were earning the least should get the most. If they were slogging off faithfully to a low wage job to support their families, their families will suffer financially far more than some stockbroker's kid - in a way that matters.
If I take out a $500,000 mortgage on my house and want to maintain the same lifestyle in case my husband the wage-earner dies, I had better pay for a large insurance policy. It would never occur to me that the rest of the country owes me that lifestyle because I didn't make plans to maintain it.
posted on September 18, 2002 06:34:08 AM newbut should they be given amounts that would equal the entire earnings and benefits for the working life of the person killed? I don't believe so. Things happen in life, circumstances change.
One of the young widows with a new born was upset that she couldn't keep her $500,000 house.... If this is the same one I saw being interviewed [I realize it may have been another case], she was worried about losing her house due to the fact that she had no immediate income to pay her mortage.
Enough money to never have to work the rest of their lives? No, I don't think that's necessary. Now, if the compensation from the government were the only monies they were to receive, I could better understand this position.
It sometimes seems as though these people think they hit a once in a lifetime lottery and want to hit for all that they can. Usually the way things go once lawyers become involved.
America, IMO, poured out their hearts and their pocketbooks to these families. They should/will be well taken care of just from those funds. If invested properly it will provide for them and their families for the rest of their lives. Even without making the government package better.
posted on September 18, 2002 09:12:46 AM new
When the government starts passing out checks, people want to get what they are entitled to, and as much as they can. That seems natural to me. (Not that it's necessarily a good thing.)
Depending on where you live, $500K for a house is not that much. You can't get a decent house in the Bay Area for that much.
posted on September 18, 2002 11:27:17 AM new
Thanks again Julesy. I agree reamond & saab. The mindset that a certain 'standard of living' will continue after a disaster is too much to ask for imo, unless you have savings.
I'm torn because it must be a horrific thing for a family to go through, but I also feel that the U.S. paid a big price when it was attacked to begin with. Why should it have to pay again to compensate for something it had no control over?
I agree reamond & saab. The mindset that a certain 'standard of living' will continue after a disaster is too much to ask for imo, unless you have savings.