Posted on 08/06/2013 8:32:42 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
I function in a somewhat less deadly environment but I am a military spouse so I get it.
We have SGLI. We have investments. We have life insurance WITHOUT an act of war exclusion. I have a self-sustaining career.
The law’s the law. Either these guys were entitled to survivor benefits or they weren’t. You take the job you live with the stipulations. Changing the rules ex post facto because we feel bad is not the right course of action.
The gory details are a bunch of good people died. I am concerned that PR can get a big payoff, but only if you have a good publicist. Should the Fed be paying off victims of a high profile work place death incident? Only if they pay off on non high profile incidents that are similar. People’s families in the twin towers on 9/11 were paid extremely well, so well that there was fraudulent cases.
If a guy that does an enclosed space rescue dies and it only makes the local news, will that be paid off as well? Isn’t his or her family worth as much? Then we should be talking about the military and that would take a longer thread.
DK
He had a dangerous job. The couple should have bought life insurance.
All those thing may be true, but this guy didn’t care enough for his family that he would put out $25 or 50 bucks a month for a couple million life policy.
If HE didn’t care, why should we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.