Guidelines for a fund

The problem we seemed to face in class on Tuesday was that no one clearly laid out what sort of situations federal funding should be available, how much should be given, and who determines the funding allocation. Many argued that you cannot put a price on the human life, but I tend to disagree. If you are given no criterion other than economic need and medical need, that in itself is putting a price on someone's life. A totally equal allocation is not justified by the fact that we'd be putting a flat price on a human life.

How much should be given?

I think the way Feinberg (and originally, Congress) went about it was fair, and generally the only way to determine how much a person should be allocated. The goal of a fund like this is to try to compensate people for the lives they've lost. It is impossible to get another life, and thus the only way to replace this is to replace what would be missing: income. Maybe in a later day and age we can create clones of the dead, and that might be great for a fantasy situation, but this is real and there is no coming back from the dead. Many would argue that the government should be responsible for giving money for death and suffering. I would argue that it is not the government's responsibility to pay for the grieving process, it happens naturally, and by dishing out hundreds of thousands of dollars for stuff like this we are taking away from what really needs funding. The funding given should not exceed 5 years of wages plus medical expenses. This is to ensure equal funding across the board, no matter what your wages are. Funds like this are NOT in place to change the quality of life for those who lost their loved ones, they are merely a way to compensate for the government's shortfalls.

What situations should be funded?

The situations in which the government should fund are those in which the government could have directly prevented. An example of this is the I-35W Bridge. The government should have seen what was wrong with the bridge during inspection, and for that, the government should be responsible. However, I do not think they should be solely responsible, and thus be the sole contributors. I feel that the other parties involved need to be contributing to this sort of fund whether or not it waives the right to sue. An example of something that should not be funded would be natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. These are happenings of nature, and unless they are sudden and unexpected(such as Morris getting hit by an earthquake or hurricane), they should not be funded. This does not mean, however, that the government needs to have a tragedy fund for every fault. If a man gets shot because there was not enough police action in the area, the government should not be liable. Thus, the situations must have been able to be prevented, not just a "well if we had had more funding we could have done something about it" sort of situation.

Who should decide this?

I think this is best left up the experts. There is no reason to bring average citizens into the situation. I would say specialty lawyers and those who deal with medical prices. Feinberg obviously is a good choice, but we cannot have Feinberg cloned, thus we must settle for whatever is the best option at the time.