So on Slashdot today, I found this article:
http://cbs13.com/local/marine.widow.verizon.2.1772409.html
The whole thing depresses me greatly. And at the risk of getting people mad at me, I have to admit I feel more sympathy (on the issue of the fee) for Verizon than I do for the widow involved. A number of people - including the media - seem to be crucifying them for this... But I really don't understand why.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's an incredible tragedy that her husband died. I'm glad she's going to be with people who care for her. What I don't completely understand is why this relieves her from contractual obligations. I don't think it's about the money; frankly, in that situation, I don't think I'd be completely lucid if it were me. But after some digging, as far as I can tell, she received a $100,000 death benefit from the armed services, in addition to any life insurance policy; and her husband was not on this contract - only she was. They weren't attempting to charge the fee because her husband died and thus couldn't use his phone; it was because, after he died, she decided to move, and the location wanted to move to did not have full coverage.
I just don't get the mindset where the company is crucified over this. I never have, and I suspect I never will. Big evil corporation, blah blah, but it's not like they maliciously went out of their way to cause trouble. In fact, they did eventually waive the fee - but I'll bet you if it actually went in front of a judge, they'd have won. Oh, they'd have gotten even more bad press, but it wasn't their obligation. So why are they wrong in the first place? Because it's "cruel and heartless to impose this kind of trouble on a grieving widow"? But that is - by the definition of them - exactly the purpose of the armed forces death benefits and life insurance payments; to handle fees like this, costs which are directly and indirectly caused by the poor woman's bereavement and otherwise wouldn't have occured. Why isn't the media pointing out that unless they opted out of the general serviceman's life insurance (at a premium of something like $0.065 per $1,000 coverage, based on what I could find online from the Navy), she received between $150,000 and $500,000? And if there was private coverage, even more?
Where exactly should the line be drawn? And this isn't meant as a snarky, nasty comment, however much some of you may take it that way anyway. It's a serious question. Where exactly are the bounds for this type of thing? Does it only apply to active duty military servicemen abroad? Coast Guard on duty in the US? What about firemen, policemen? How about embedded media in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - after all, however much individuals may disagree with what they perceive as unfair slant from a given news agency, they're risking their lives to bring important information and perspective back to us here. How about the victims of terrorist attacks? Thousands of deaths on 9/11. How about victims of general peace-keeping? I know third-hand (a friend's friend) someone who was killed during a high speed chase; idiot robbed a store and took off, side-swiped a police car who hit her where she'd pulled over... Slammed her into a pole and killed her.
And what should be covered? What should be under this blanket forgiveness? If someone dies, they're obviously not going to be driving their car any more. If it's still under loan, should the loan be forgiven? If it's under lease, should the early-termination clause be forgiven? What if it's the survivor who leased a mini-van, anticipatory to having kids; and now they need something more economic and smaller. Should that be forgiven?
And who? Only spouses? What about fiances? Maybe they already bought a house together. Parents? Maybe they were counting on the kid's income to help support them after retirement. Children? Maybe the kids just started college, and already have $100,000 in college loans the parent was going to pay; or maybe they didn't qualify for good loans, and the parent was just planning on paying it outright before whatever tragedy happened. Should those be forgiven?
When did this type of thing become an entitlement, a right, and not just a kind gesture?
The answer, by the way, to almost all of the above examples, falls into three categories (frequently a combination of them): insurance, administrative benefits, and charity. For 9/11, there were millions and millions of dollars given to affected families - probably billions, when all the insurance policies came into effect. Life insurance payed a huge amount, to every covered victim. The city, state, and federal governments raised and allocated funds for assistance. And numerous organizations - from the Fraternal Order of Police, to the Red Cross, to organizations that sprouted up specifically for the purpose - collected and disbursed millions more.
Look at the letter from the President of the NYSFOP here, relative to the relief fund they set up: http://www.nysfop.org/wtc-relief-fund.htm. Look at the top two bullet points. To assist both injured officers and the families of fallen officers with direct financial assistance; and to assist with education for officers' families. This, this is exactly how - in my opinion - it should be handled. The people who feel responsibility or sympathy for their situation can band together and help defray the costs they have - their unexpected inability to proceed with their lives, through no fault of their own. And that is what happened.
When I die, however nobly or ignobly, I don't expect the world around me to take care of my expenses. I'm not a hero. I'm not fighting to make the world safer by stopping terrorism on the front lines; I'm fighting to make capital area NY health insurance a little bit better, one line of code and one database row at a time. No survivor of mine is going to receive a death benefit beyond what I'm paying for paycheck-to-paycheck. I have life insurance, to cover my child support, to cover my funeral. It's not as much as I'd like - poor general health and poor financials make it difficult, or at least expensive - but it should be enough. And it just irks me that someone else assumes other people should take care of it for them... And then crucifies the company that is in the right, by their contract, when that company doesn't. And for such a paltry amount, too. To me, it's not right for them to complain; it's a mockery of the soldier, that his death should be used as a bludgeon for something like this.
Anyway. I hope I didn't offend anyone with this. Just my $0.02.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment