Posted on 10/25/2007 12:47:48 PM PDT by pitinkie
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Almost three months after the deadly bridge collapse crushed her legs, Mercedes Gorden said her medical bills are approaching $300,000.
Gorden and other survivors - along with relatives of two people who died in the collapse - want state lawmakers to create a compensation fund modeled on the 9/11 fund established by Congress after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The disaster victim compensation fund proposed by Rep. Ryan Winkler of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, would cover medical costs, economic losses and pain and suffering. Collapse survivors who accepted a settlement from the fund would give up their right to sue the state.
Winkler said the fund is needed because Minnesota law caps the state's liability at $1 million per incident and $300,000 per individual. He and Rep. Phyllis Kahn, also of the DFL, said the total cost would be a small percentage of the estimated bridge recovery and reconstruction costs, which are close to $400 million.
"One thing that we can do is make sure that failure of this bridge is not a financial burden on these individuals," Winkler said at a hearing of the House State Government Finance Committee at the American Red Cross in Minneapolis.
Action on the bill probably won't happen before the Legislature reconvenes in February, unless Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty calls a special session, which is unlikely.
He said medical bills for some individuals alone will easily top $1 million.
Testimony from survivors and family members outlined the human side of the losses.
Jennifer Holmes cried when she talked about her husband, Patrick Holmes, who died in the collapse. She said she notices his absence in little things, like doing laundry and errands, to bigger issues like saving for their two children's future.
(Excerpt) Read more at att.net ...
No disrespect to this widow here, but why did your husband not have life insurance if you had 2 small children at home? I have no doubt my death would impact my family in many ways, including financial, but they would not be destitute and my childrens college educations would be secure.
Maybe Hillary and the Dems can kick in all their illegal chinese money!
Not exactly 100% on subject, but if people NEED LIFE INSURANCE they should buy it and not hope to die in some kind of freak accident after which their heirs might be lucky enough to sue someone. FReepers, please be sure you have enough life insurance....
I was frustrated that after 9/11, tragic and sad as it was, that too many people did not have enough life insurance and needed the charity/government handouts.
“Minnesota law caps the state’s liability at $1 million per incident and $300,000 per individual.”
That’s a good incentive for the state not to repair bridges...
We are in the midst of a major disaster in Southern California where people lost everything. We have widows/widowers and the children of our troops needing help too. And, where’s the outcry for our severely wounded troops and their families who desperately need help?
Let's not make it it a feeding trough every useless liberal can belly up to and suck dry.
Oh' and leave my federal tax dollars out of it. I didn't screw up the bridge by diverting funds to build some politicians pet project.
Tough choice.
On the one-hand, we could establish a multi-billion dollar fund that would provide endless medical coverage for any tragedy that may occur at any point in the future.
On the other hand, we could remove the caps in the state liability.
Tough, tough choice.
Take a look at the collective personal wealth of all those in Congress. The DC political hacks want to distribute our confiscated dollars while they keep their own. Something doesn’t add up.
The 9/11 fund was unwarranted compensation against a TERRORIST act.
The only real purpose was to prevent lawsuits against the airlines, which might have succeeded even though the airlines weren’t at fault.
The bridge collapse was a result of the state’s actions and the families should be compensated as such, but any comparisons or attempts to mimic the 9/11 fund would be a mistake.
The 9/11 fund was an atrocity that should never be repeated.
I’ve got mine and it comes right out of my paycheck. Insurance is cheep if it’s locked in when you’re in your 20s or 30s.
Mine takes a huge jump when I’m around 75 but then my family will not need it as much. I’ll have my funeral prepaid shortly also.
I knew that all those “funds” after 9/11 were a bad idea. How low/small can a calamity go/get for survivors to clammer for a special fund?
“Victims”? sometimes I hate “victims”.
I say “Victims” in the sense of people who fail to take advantage of programs/systems that are available to everybody but they choose not to because they find better things to do with their money.
No kidding, especially when one considers that most of the families of the 9/11 victims were well off.
In this particular case though wasn’t the state at fault for not doing the proper maintenance? This isn’t the same thing as the fires and storms because the bridge collapse was not due to a natural disaster.
This isn’t a government handout. The Government’s design and maintanence of the bridge was negligent. If this had been a privately owned bridge people could sue to recover all of the damages. The State of Minnessota, however, has artificially capped the amount of damages that can be sought against the state. All that these people are requesting is that either a fund be set up or the laws be changed so that people can recover damages from the state government like they could from a private party.
BTTT
While I feel for these folks pain & suffering, that said, I have always thought that the 9-11 fund was the beginning of a slippery slope.
I don't think it is logical to, one hand, to say that a person has duty of care to himself and his family, but at the same time he does not have an ogligation to exercise due care to insure that his actions, or his negligence in not taking some action, cause a reasonably foreseeable harm to another. If that were true, why do we punish people for DUI or vehicular homicide when they drive drunk and kill someone? True one harm is criminal and the other is civil, but why would you be obligated to not commit a criminal wrong, yet not be obligated by the same act to be responsible for a civil wrong?
Well, its hard to argue no government liability when a state owned bridge collapses... I think its hard to argue the state has no liability in this one... And these families I am sure will eventually get something from the state, the contractors, or insurance companies for them or others. Lets face it, some folks screwed up big time here.
I just don’t understand if you have children in particular how you don’t have life insurance.... Its a very cheap thing, and while it doesn’t replace mommy or daddy coming home every night, it at least ensures your family will not be losing everything should something happen to you.
Ms. Gorden, I assume that means you want people to get refunds from the charities they have given to so that you could be helped.
Yay! More nanny state socialism! Just what we needed... (/vomiting sarcasm)
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.