Victim's Fund

I guess I have mixed feelings about the allocation of funds to victims. I do think it should exist, I am not arguing about that, but the manner at which it is happening is really bothersome to me. I don't think the question boils down to the amounts of money well off victims receive versus families affected by low wages. It was unfair that firefighters, cops, and other lower paid workers were living at poverty levels before the the attacks and an event like this just exposes the problems of inequality. I agree with Feinberg that in a situation like this no one is going to be happy so why not just spread the money equally? My personal dislike for Feinberg tends to make me believe he is two faced and cold. Unfortunately, he seems to have excellent qualifications to do the job but one of the qualifications seems to include being a heartless lawyer who's prior experience has made him numb to things like this. Lets forget categorizing people's suffering. Equal distribution would be quick and effective. I say this in hopes that the average would rise and those already well off would receive less while those who were already struggling would get slightly more. This gives everybody something, including those who have delayed reactions, and puts the matter to rest. I basically think that there is no right way to fix the issue. Terrible things happen and sometimes there is no perfect solution to fix it. I feel as if there was so much that went wrong that it would be difficult to seek monetary compensation from any one source. It seems that it was the fault of the intelligence community, the airlines, Port Authority, the City of New York, past White House administrations, civil defenses, Al-Qaeda (most of all), etc. Events like this are just not supposed to happen. It is hard to put blame on anyone so the victims fund is justified way to try and deliver compensation to victims, avoid lawsuits, and equal distribution of the initial fund is the simplest and fairest way to distribute the money.

The 35-W bridge case is a little different in my mind. Shouldn't the state of Minnesota have inspected the bridge regularly to make sure it was not going to collapse? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the state to provide funds for medical care that insurance companies won't when it is the state's fault the bridge fell down? I don't feel as if citizens should complain about sending tax dollars to people who did nothing other than try to drive from point A to point B and were injured or killed because of the state failure. I feel as if DeLaForest was out of line when he made his insurance comment about people having "enough insurance." Most people don't plan on sustaining severe life threatening injury and if they do they probably pay an arm and a leg for it. As far as things like therapy goes I am a little on the fence but if a licensed medical professional recommends it I feel that it should be covered. As a parting thought I am just wondering why medical care is so expensive? I understand the logistics of it but from a purely humanitarian stand point it seems kind of ridiculous that hospital bills are so high. I suppose that opens a whole new can of worms so I will just quit now.