leo@cca.UUCP (Louise Osterman) (02/04/86)
> > > How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would > have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they > didn't, why not? If they did, what is this fund? I have a feeling that > it's the good old american way of capitalizing on tragedy. > > C'mon, you're not going to try and tell me that no one knew > that this was risky business, are you? > > John. My immediate reaction when I heard about this "trust fund" is that there were a lot of well-intentioned people wanting to do something to "help" the children of the Challenger crew. Since we cannot all have a personal, direct effect on the lives of the crew's children, the first thought is to "help" them financially. That is a nice gesture, although I am not sure that it is apropos in this situation. Consider that when we usually dig into our pockets to help others, those "others" are usually the hungry, homeless, disadvantaged, etc. people in our world. Now consider the crew of the Challenger. These people were, at least, living a middle-class life. They were the "cream of the crop" and were aware of the risks they took in their work. Insurance should have been an automatic part of their compensation. I find it difficult to believe that the financial aspects of their lives will be terribly disrupted. Money cannot replace the lost spouse or parent. Meanwhile, millions of people around the world continue to live, rather exist, lives of uncertainty and hopelessness, where early death due to starvation and disease is a part of their daily life. In our attempts to show our support for the families of the Challenger crew, let us not forget that there are many others whose very existence depends upon our charity and generosity. Louise E. Osterman Computer Corporation of America
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (02/05/86)
> > > How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would > have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they > didn't, why not? If they did, what is this fund? I have a feeling that > it's the good old american way of capitalizing on tragedy. > > C'mon, you're not going to try and tell me that no one knew > that this was risky business, are you? > > John. The crew had signed a paper stating that in the event of an accident the families of the survivors cannot sue NASA. I'm sure everyone has independent insurance policies, just as you have at your worksite. The schoolteacher, BTW, had a $1,000,000 insurance policy with LLoyds of London. Of course her husband would rather have her than the money.
tp@ndm20 (02/06/86)
> How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would >have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they >didn't, why not? According to a news broadcast that I saw, NASA can not, by federal law, purchase insurance for the shuttle, or the crew. Chrisat McAuliffe was given a $1M insurance policy by a firm whose name I forget. The families of those crew members in the military will get standard military death benefits, I assume. But indications are that other non-military crewmembers will receive no other government benefits. If they were not otherwise insured, they will receive nothing. Even if they were insured, my wife (who has worked in the group life insurance industry) informs me that all standard life policies have an exclusion clause for the flight crew of any aircraft. If the crew did not have the right kind of insurance, I suspect the families will get nothing. I hope I'm wrong on this, and I hope someone will correct me, but it seems some of the families may be in dire need of financial assistance. Terry Poot
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (02/07/86)
In article <6013@cca.UUCP> leo@cca.UUCP (Louise Osterman) writes: [ ATTRIBUTION MISSING ] >> How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? ... >> John. >Consider that when we usually dig into our pockets to help others, those >"others" are usually the hungry, homeless, disadvantaged, etc. people in our >world. Now consider the crew of the Challenger. ... >In our attempts to show our support for the families of the Challenger crew, >let us not forget that there are many others whose very existence depends >upon our charity and generosity. Meanwhile, out of whatever feelings, people are setting up this trust fund on their own. Perhaps, if it is truly not needed, the beneficiaries might find that they want it used as Louise suggests. I hope, BTW, that anyone who finds in themselves the least bit of agreement with this argument ... actually takes the trouble to go and donate time or money or both to this kind of a cause, That would be a more lasting and worthwhile monument than a new space shuttle. (Which is not to say that the trust fund and space shuttle aren't worth while, of course, for ye of itchy flame-trigger fingers.) -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
sytek@tektronix.UUCP (Mike Ewan) (02/07/86)
In article <884@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes: > > > How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would >have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they >didn't, why not? If they did, what is this fund? I have a feeling that >it's the good old american way of capitalizing on tragedy. > > C'mon, you're not going to try and tell me that no one knew >that this was risky business, are you? > > John. NASA does not carry insurance on the shuttle crew. Each crew member has insurance through the military or through the private sector. The commander, pilot and one other crew member had military insurance of approx. $50,000. No data was available for the other members except Krista due to privacy laws. Of course Krista had the million dollar policy from Lloyds. Otherwise she would have had only the insurance provided by her school district. Yes they know it is a risky business, but NASA is not in the insurance business. Mike Ewan (the above opinions are all my own)
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/09/86)
> > > How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would > >have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they > >didn't, why not? > > According to a news broadcast that I saw, NASA can not, by federal > law, purchase insurance for the shuttle, or the crew. Chrisat The government insures NOTHING. When we had a 6 million dollar computer site shipped by truck accross country, we had to hope nothing happens. When the government rents vehicles, it does not pay for insurance, if they are damaged or the government incurs liability they pay for it themselves. For those who are curious, the standard life insurance for civilian goverment employees is an amount equal to your annual salary. You are best advised to gets some additional coverage at your own expense if you have a family. Of course, other than McAuliffe there were non-government civilians on the flight. Typically Aerospace companies have both some standard life insurance (like twice your salary) plus some phenomenal accidental death and dismembership policies included as the no-cost benefits of the company. -Ron
andy@stc.co.uk (02/14/86)
In article <6519@tektronix.UUCP> sytek@tektronix.UUCP (Mike Ewan) writes: >In article <884@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes: >> >> >> How is it that a children's fund is actually necessary? I would >>have thought that NASA would have insured the lives of the crew. If they >>didn't, why not? If they did, what is this fund? I have a feeling that >>it's the good old american way of capitalizing on tragedy. >> >> C'mon, you're not going to try and tell me that no one knew >>that this was risky business, are you? >> >> John. > >NASA does not carry insurance on the shuttle crew. Each crew member has >insurance through the military or through the private sector. The commander, >pilot and one other crew member had military insurance of approx. $50,000. > >No data was available for the other members except Krista due to privacy laws. >Of course Krista had the million dollar policy from Lloyds. Otherwise >she would have had only the insurance provided by her school district. > >Yes they know it is a risky business, but NASA is not in the insurance >business. > > Mike Ewan > (the above opinions are all my own) OK, we are all agreed that seven people have died in an unfortunate disaster. Our sympathies of course go out to the relatives of the people that died. However this is not the first time people have died in the course of work, travel etc. What happens every time there is a car/coach/train/aeroplane crash, do charities get set up ? No. Looking at it from the childrens point of view, their misery is not going to be eased simply by having more money in their piggy bank. The time and effort that will be spent by people setting up this charity, should be admired and congratulated. But I feel the money could be better spent on people in the third world or medical research. Andy Jay. -- Andy Jay. "Why put off something till tommorow, when you can forget it all together"