Will the US government give money to the families who suffered a loss of a loved one in Boston?

Different scale but it is a similar decision. The government didn’t prevent a terrorist attack when they had knowledge about it beforehand. They interviewed/interrogated the older brother earlier.So I guess yes.

Well, since I fervently believe that the government should be providing health care anyway, I would certainly agree that those who now have extraordinary medical bills completely outside of their own control should be compensated to at least cover for those bills and the recurring costs of the damage to their bodies and minds.

Think of the father who has lost a child, and now has to also take care of an amputee daughter and a brain damaged wife. That guy deserves much more than a little financial assistance for his troubles.

This is an early reading of what has been reported, but the FBI couldn’t find any links between Tsarnaev and a terrorist group. And it seems he was coming up with all this on his own, and not connected to a group. So don’t make it out that the government “had knowledge.”

@Seek_Kolinahr I should have added to the Q a separate question about medical costs, hopefully jellies will see your answer and mine here. I favor socialized medicine myself, but we don’t have socialized medicine right now so I am not sure I would use my support of health care for everyone as a reason to fund all the medical needs of those injured in the attack. I am not saying I don’t support the government taking care of their costs, I have to think to what extent I support the idea, but the foundation for supporting it would not be because I think everyone in the country should be covered in general.

Do you also think the families of those who died should get a payment for their loss?

@zenvelo So, for you, if they were part of a terrorist plot the families should get money, but if they acted on their own the families should not get money? Or, no one should get money? I’m not sure what your answer is to the question.

@JLeslie Do you think, if any of those people had health insurance, that the insurance company will refuse to pay, claiming this as an “act of God” since the elder Tsarnev brother was acting under religious influence?

Just idly wondering…

@Seek_Kolinahr I know my property insurance excludes “Acts of Terror” from the coverage so I’d bet the health insurance does too.

@Seek_Kolinahr I don’t see what an act of God has to do with medical insurance, it isn’t home owners insurance. I assume you are being sarcastic to some extent anyway, but even if the families have health insurance I am sure they most likely have deductables, and that would not cover other pain and suffering anyway.

Just to be clear, I am not saying I am against the government helping with the costs of treating victims and their families.

See? there you go.

The free market can’t be counted on to provide for its paying customers in these situations, so the government should step up to the plate. I’m sure we’re not paying taxes just to subsidize the bloodthirst of the military and their urge for revenge attacks, right?

When I bought the mower shop, in 2002, my insurance agent asked me if I wanted a policy to cover terrorism. It was in a tiny little farming town in Kansas. I had a sudden vision of little two-seater crop duster crashing into my little building! I said, ‘Uh…no.”

@Seek_Kolinahr Look, I am with you about socialized medicine, but we don’t have socialized medicine right now, I don’t want the Q to turn into a Q about that. Let’s deal with the realities of our medical system present day. Even if the medical insurance covers terrorism that might be irrelevant to the Q, because for 9/11 it did not matter if people had life insurance, the government paid out regardless.

Also, when someone dies there is minimal medical expense, but there is burial or related expenses. Some people have life insurance, and then there is also the consideration that people get compensated for loss of life. So, I am assuming you think the government should pay money for loss of life.

A Democrat governor, all District Reps (I think) are Democrats, topped off by a Democrat President.

What do you think?

I don’t see why they should get money from the government here.

@josie Pres. Bush was a Republican when all the money was paid out for 9/11.

Exactly.
So imagine what can happen when partisan politics comes into play.

Federal money for 9/11 victims? What was the name of this?

There was the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund which compensated the families but only so that they agree not to sue the airline corporations involved in the attack.

Then there was another September 11th Fund in NYC, but that was charity.

Why single out only popular tragedies? There are victims everyday from other forms of violence. You would have to compensate everyone.

What does a victim of a terror attack have to do with a complete strangers money?

Or if the victim didn’t purchase any kind of insurance, why should a complete stranger compensate the victim?

I don’t understand why there would be a government payout for such a thing.

@JLeslie I can’t separate my convictions from my convictions…

I believe the purpose of government is to provide for the citizens that live under its laws and pay taxes (when able). If for some reason a person is no longer able to provide for themselves, the government should assist them in such a way as to make them able to provide for themselves.

A citizen who has been victimised by an attack that leaves them with medical bills that they will either be unable to pay, or paying will prevent them from providing for themselves and their families, it is the government’s responsibility to help them. Thus aided, the person will be able to contribute once again to society through production and taxes. Or if they are utterly disabled, they should be provided for so the incident that they had no control over shouldn’t force them to live a life of slow torture until they eventually die pained, sick, and destitute, with hungry children that cannot afford an education, which will then perpetuate poverty. Call it dramatic, but that is reality.

A little money spent now prevents a lot of money being spent later.

@tomathon The Sept 11th Victim Compensation fund did indeed help to protect the airlines from lawsuit, but it was not the only reason for the fund the way I understand it. In fact, the people who were “worth” more, their families received much larger payouts than other families. That sounds more like life insurance to me.

From what I understand a new fund has been created since. I am not sure of the details of how it is to be used. I think it had to do with the ongoing health problems and possible deaths related to people who worked at ground zero and now have lingering and worsening health issues, but I don’t know how accurate my information is. It also is unclear to me if this new fund is for other events like the Boston Marathon attack.

I hope I make my stance as clear as possible; I don’t want to seem cold or anything.

But…

I sort of feel that if we had some kind of knowledge that an attack was going to happen, and we didn’t try to or weren’t successful in preventing it, then the victims’ families should be entitled to some kind of compensation.

However, I think if this was just a random thing, nothing anybody had any prior indication of, while compensation may be a good thing to do, I don’t feel like anyone is responsible for it.

I look at it this way. Say you live in Big City. And your spouse is murdered. Would you expect Big City Government to give you money? No, you wouldn’t. If Big City Government gives money to families of victims in a “mass” murder, does that make those families more deserving than the other family whose spouse was murdered alone? Why are those murder victims’ families more entitled to every other murder victim’s family in Big City?

@Seek_Kolinahr And, the governement should do that for every family that loses a working adult that contributes to the household income? Whether it is a bomb, car accident, illness, sudden death or whatever?

Plus, a dead child does not cost the family more money, they spend less money overall. Unless they have another child because one died (not that you can ever replace a child, but you can become a parent again so to speak).

The payout should be proportionate to the family’s needs.

If they are low-income, the loss of a child should have a basic funeral cost covered. It’s a crime that all children aren’t 100% covered on medical bills already, so that’s there.

Current Social Security death benefit is what, $255? That’s not enough to cover the fines you’d receive if you threw Daddy’s body off a boat in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, much less enough to pay for a funeral and counseling for grieving children who just saw Daddy get blown to bits by ball bearings stuffed in a crock-pot.

No, I don’t think there will be any reason for the gov’t to do a payout in this situation.

As for the medical bills of the victims, so far the One Fund Boston has rec’d one million dollars from New Balance and another million from Adidas.

Within 24 hours, the fund had already raised $7 million.

@JLeslie

I think you’re talking about the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company fund.

@tomathon The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Just announced: The One Fund has raised $20 Million in one week.

Yeah, that is the one I mentioned earlier. She later mentioned the workers that were working on the site after 9/11. The Center Captive Insurance Company fund was created for them.

They will probably pay for the accused surviving bombers’ medical bills for the rest of his life. And possibly the widow of the deceased bomber will get something seein’s the govt is flush with cash right now. The victims no doubt won’t need to ask the govt for financial help.

@JLeslie, the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund was done by Congress to keep people from suing the airlines.

I skimmed the responses too quickly and without reading. I see my answer was already posted. Sorry.

@woodcutter told you the story, the well being of the perpetrator is always of more concern than the victim. His medical bills will be paid, his security will be taken care of, he will be housed, fed, receive dental, and on and on and on. Isn’t that the humane way to treat prisoners? Doesn’t less than that cause much consternation and criticism of the prison system? He should never be made to work for his living, he should be rehabilitated!

Doesn’t Social Security pay out benefits to people with disabilities? It is not nearly as much as is spent on the welfare of a person in prison, but hey, get your priorities straight! The working tax payers can’t afford to support everyone!

I think they should just pop him in front of a firing squad and instead, spend the money that is and will be spent on his trials, appeals and life incarceration, on the victims.

@rooeytoo “Doesn’t Social Security pay out benefits to people with disabilities? It is not nearly as much as is spent on the welfare of a person in prison, but hey, get your priorities straight! ”

I’ll remember that the next time we discuss the importance of government-funded social programs. ;)

@glacial I don’t know what you mean. I have never denied a responsibility of government and tax payers to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I resent having to pay for those who could be working but choose not to because they feel available jobs are beneath them, or those who figure why work when the government will pay me not to or those who use the money supplied by the government and tax payers to buy drugs, cigarettes and booze. And I do think all those in prison should work for their keep. Now if that makes me a less superior human being than you, so be it.

@rooeytoo I am not now, nor have I ever claimed to be a superior being. It’s not the first time you’ve said that to me, and I don’t know where that comes from. I was making a friendly joke based on our conservative-liberal tendencies. I didn’t mean to insult you in any way.

The govt might give money to any of those businesses that where put out of action during the time their street was closed off. I hope that no one who had minimal life interrupting drama will try to milk the system but there will probably be a few.

@glacial – I didn’t see the humour and I thought you were taking a shot at me. So I reacted. I am becoming so used to defending not only my own positions but those of my country against the onslaught of criticism from many Canadians, Germans, and some Americans as well, it is becoming second nature.

And by the way, I don’t consider myself a conservative, just a realist who is still working and paying taxes.

@rooeytoo If it’s any consolation, I have plenty of complaints about my own government; unfortunately, discussions about Canadian politics are very few and far between here. So other friends get to hear those rants. :/

@glacial – It is interesting, that! The same is true here. Although again I know so many aussies who would rather talk about the US government than deal with the constant lies, broken promises and sadly sinking economy of their own PM and country. They are still dwelling on 9/11 being set up by the US government and now the same of Boston.

So thank you, I am somewhat consoled ;-)

Hey. HEY! I’m superior. See.