dojN002210.xml

dojN002210.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-22

Tuesday, January 22, 2002 8:43 AM
Comments on Interim Final Rule

I wish to address several issues that are of concern to me with regard to
compensation for victims of the September 11, 2001 catastrophe.

* Although there is no way to determine monetary compensation for the
terror and fear these people have experienced, I believe it is wrong to say
that those who have suffered emotional or mental problems as a result of the
events are not entitled to benefits. The images and horrors of that day are
something that these people will have to live with for the rest of their
lives. It may affect their ablility to function in this society. To say
that this nightmare that they will live with is not worthy off compensation
is an abomination. There are many cases where people having witnessed
devasting events have had their lives severely affected. I believe that
these people need to be compensated also. These people have no life
insurance or other charitable donations to help them move past what may be
economic devastion for many. I suggest there should be at least a minimum
monetary compensation for ALL people that were in the World Trade Center that
fateful day. Addtional values then should be added for those with injuries
etc with of course the ultimate value being to those who lives were lost.
Another reason to consider a minimum compensation is that there are also
people whose companies have been wiped out, their livelyhood taken away from
them through no fault of their own. These people may be in severe economic
hardship as well as not have health insurance benefits. It is easy for us
not there that day to say that they can always get another job. For many
that is not as easy as it may seem.

I also urge you to consider the plight of the many gay/lesbian families and
other non-married or non-traditional families that have also been affected.
The Rule addresses the issue of a "personal representative" but that
definition may be construed to exclude members of these "families". I
believe that the rules set up in many jurisdiction to determine "domestic
partnership" be considered in determining who is indeed is a survivor of that
victim. Another defintion that could be used is if the company that person
worked for provided benefits for domestic partners.

I thank the Government of the United States for taking the initiative to
indeed help and compenstate these victims. I only ask that you consider the
ramifications of not helping ALL the victims.

Individual Comment
Columbus, Ohio

2002-01-22