Profiting from tragedy

The Washington Times | September 23, 2002 | Ralph Harrison

[Dante3]

What words best describe the families of September 11 victims who are waiting in line for the payday of a lifetime at the expense of American taxpayers and everyone who will have to pay higher insurance premiums ("Terror victims' kin wait for best compensation," The Washington Times, Sept. 18, '02)? Greedy and undeserving.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic to their loss and sorrow, but so far as I am concerned these people just need to get on with rebuilding their lives without crying to the rest of American for unjust support.

Let their employers cover the damage with group- or key-employee life insurance and pension payouts. Don't ask taxpayers to fund some absurd actuarial computation determined by corrupt laywers who want their share, too.

I say to the Cantor Fitzgeral-led mob standing in line with their ambulance-chasing attorneys just waiting to enrich themselves: "America owes you nothing. Not now. Not ever."

Most of the deceased just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If anyone is to receive anything as the result of September 11, let it be from life insurance or pension plans. In fact there should be no handouts until America pays the families of those military men and women who died in every war our nation hsa ever fought. If anyone deserves compensation, it is them.

[Dante3]

I have no objections to the families getting money from the huge amounts of private donations. I object to special entitlement at taxpayers expense. I do agree that if anyone is to be compensated it is the families of the firemen, police, and our military who died -- of heroes such as Neil Roberts.

So why this special entitlement to the WTC victims? Is it because many of them are wealthy New Yorkers?

[thegreatbeast]

There are no assurances in this life, no guarantees. There is plenty enough money to offer these surviving family members a chance to get on with their lives with some degree of financial certitude. Best they get to it.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

How are you certain the victims families are wealthy New Yorkers? Because their deceased worked in Manhatten?

I think it is a compensation due to terrorist attacks, not a special feel-sorry-for-you payoff. If it were me, I wouldn't feel I had a *right* to being compensated, but if the money came from frozen assets of the terrorists, I'd say "bring it on". I wouldn't necessarily want their money, but if it meant draining their resources and them knowing who had their funds, it would be fine with me.

[Dudoight]

You make a great deal of sense. We don't give $1.2 million to every soldier or fireman who dies in the line of duty. It does appear that the mentality is to 'get all you can', with the lawyers reaping their sizeable cut. It embarasses me that $1.2 million is not enough and the US taxpayer owes the victims as much as they can sue to get. Agreed, it was a tragedy. But are we setting a precedent, that every victim of terrorist attacks or acts of war (which may or may not be in our future) has won the lottery? Is it really appropriate?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don't know about you, but I gave what little I did to the 9/11 fund in the hope that it would reduce the loss of the grieving. And that applies to the "wealthy" as well as to the poor; everyone has their own accustomed standard of living and if my buck goes to a widow who needs it to pay the mortgage on a mansion which I can only dream of, so be it--well and good.

[SteamshipTime]

I think it is a compensation due to terrorist attacks...

Wrong. It is an unconstitutional, involuntary transfer of wealth.

[SteamshipTime]

I gave too. However, I did not "give" my tax dollars.

The cynical boot-strapping of OKC families into this unconstitutional vote-buying fund is a further insult.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Transfer of wealth?

You recieve insurance benefits from an employer?

[Cicero]

We just had a sermon about Christian justice in church yesterday, in response to the gospel reading.

In Christ's parable, the Lord of the Harvest paid the eleventh-hour workers a day's wage for an hour's work, so the men who had worked a full twelve hours complained.

"Why do you complain because I am generous?" was the response. They got their just day's wage.

So what if a few of the survivors turn out to be less nice than the others? That really isn't the point. People gave out of love, horror, sympathy, and generosity. Somehow I doubt after reading this article that Ralph Harrison gave much himself, if any.

If he did give, he has no reason to regret it.

[SteamshipTime]

Insurance benefits are paid to the voluntary participants in a risk-spreading pool upon the occurrence of contractually-specified risks. The WTC/OKC fund is without any basis in the constitution (in other words, no taxpayer has "contracted" for it) and it is funded by coercive extractions from the private sector rather than voluntary premium payments.

It is no more characteristic of insurance than a politician's slush fund.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I was wondering where I could find info on my health insurance benefits in the Constitution. Got a link?

BTW, I am sure we can find the tax dollar trail to the insurance benefits you recieve.

[Dante3]

In no way do I mean to critcize the giving of private, voluntary contributions to these families. You can give your money to anyone you wish. The author and I are opposed to awarding these families with huge sums from our TAXES while little is done to help the families of our military men who have died fighting to keep this country free.

[SteamshipTime]

I was wondering where I could find info on my health insurance benefits in the Constitution. Got a link?
There is no constitutional basis for government involvement in health insurance, just as there is no constitutional basis for the WTC/OKC fund.

I am sure we can find the tax dollar trail to the insurance benefits you recieve
I'm sure we can too, but that is an argument against taxes, not against insurance.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

So why then is it okay to get health insurance benefits which have been sourced by tax dollars, but not use tax dollars (and I am not certain the WTC benefits are tax dollars entirely - aren't they also from frozen terrorist assets?) to provide for victims families who may have lost the benefit due to the murder on our soil by terrorists?

[SteamshipTime]

So why then is it okay to get health insurance benefits which have been sourced by tax dollars, but not use tax dollars...to provide for victims families who may have lost the benefit due to the murder on our soil by terrorists?
Did I say it was?

Compensation can only be just when the responsible party must pay for the harm caused. To force a third party to pay the victim is immoral. To the extent terrorist assets are seized and used, that would be appropriate. Otherwise, there is no moral justification to force US taxpayers to pay for the harm that somebody else caused.

[Dante3]

Excellent point.