P000309
Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:23 PM
9-11 Victims' Compensation
Dear Mr. Feinberg:
Thankyou for the opportunity to comment about the law governing victims'
compensation for the September 11th tragedy. I understand that I am late to
this, however, an editorial in the Washington Post by has
promted me to share my opinion. First, let me say that I am not related to
anyone who lost a loved one that day. I have many ties to NYC - my husband
and I traveled many times through the Twin Towers and had a first date in the
Windows restaurant. We feel great sympathy for the families and we, as well
as our children, donated money to organizations helping these families. What
has me concerned is the apparent sense of entitlement and growing
dissatisafction on the part of many of the victims' families about the
governments attempt to "compensate" for their loss. On many levels, this is
disconcerting and sad. What I cannot fathom is, no amount of money can
"compensate" for the loss of a loved and if it were me, any monetary payment
would be welcomed as I begin to make peace with the loss. Why do these
families want to prolong their grief- as in lawsuits - to inflate their
compensations? If , as so many families state, it isn't "about the money"
then why are they complaining and threatening if the guidelines are not
changed to suit them? As I reviewed many of the comments, there were several
issues that I felt compelled to respond to. In no particular order:
1) Definition of "kin" - It seems that there are several groups of people who
do not agree with the definition of family member for beneficiary purposes. I
agree that gay partners should receive any compensation due their partners.
Since they cannot legally marry, if they can prove that they were in a
"marital" or otherwise, familial relationship, that should fulfill the
definition. As for fiances - the fact that they were not married does not
entitle them to the same rights as those married. Sure, there is likely the
same loss and perhaps people cohabitating feel they should be viewed the same
way, and I find it rather interesting that there was no urgency to "make it
legal" for cohabitators yet when it comes time to "collect" the goodies
associated with legal status, then, it becomes and urgent matter for them.
There has to be some reasonable way to define family member which is
consistent with other types of governmental entitlements or legal terms.
2) Issue of "justice" and "non-economic" collateral - In some of the
comments, people reference the cap on "pain & suffering" awards. First of
all, the issue of the collateral source rule does not have the same
application here as in other crimes. The government - who is making the award
- is not responsible for the loss. It is only out of generosity and sheer
magnitude, that these victims have a hallowed status among others in the
government's eye for justice. We did not compensate other victims of other
tragedies (Oklahoma etc) to anywhere near the degree. Most Americans would be
happy to see victim's families receive a fair compensation; we just do not
like the unappreciative comments. Since no amount of money would be adequate,
there again has to be a reasonable way to calculate the awards. It seems that
people do not like the way that their family member were "valued" compared
with others. One woman had the nerve to state that her husband was an ivy
league educated MBA and the implication was that he should have a different
amount of compensation than the firemen because they had a "choice" to go in
an risk their lives and her husband was only going to work. What did she
think those firemen were doing? It was the firemen who chose to go in and
save others lives. Surely, it is not a penalty to deduct the value of life
insurance policies. The fact that some people planned better for a
catastrophic financial loss should be of great comfort to those whose family
members did so. Instead, some believe that they are being punished. There
will be no way to assuage everyone's feelings about the issue of value and
compensation and fairness. It seems to me that the only way to view this
tragic "pay-off" is to keep it equitable as the same loss was experienced by
each of the families. That there may be huge disparities among the future
losses (of income, companionship etc) cannot be compensated for.........
I wish you much luck and wisdom in sorting this out. I think you have made a
fair and reasonable attempt in enacting these guidelines. As a very
patriotic American, former New Yorker, current Washingtonian, I am deeply
outraged at this attack and feel deep sympathy for the families. We all cried
billions of tears for this loss of life. It seems, though, that we must
quickly determine what is a fair compensation and move forward. I hope that
the victims' families can try to view this law as an unprecedented outreach
by our government and our citizens to, in part, allow them to also move on
with their lives with some measure of financial security. Do not allow greed
to taint this outpouring of generosity and collective spiritual support. I
wish everyone peace.
Individual Comment