I think you misunderstand me. In this case sure there is a worksmans comp benefit to argue over, but it seems thst is just by chance that this becomes a corner case they can argue over. I agree they can argue it as they like, but the rule was as it was stated at the time.
Just because this is a new story of a benefit that got reduced somehow draws the focus to elevates the wc as the one magical thing that should've covered every kind of bad event and made everything right when clearly its not.
My point was to look beyond overfocusing on this one corner scenario and think about all similar surviving families that may face a similar financial predicament, what would be the probability that the cause that put them there falls under this wc decision versus unexpectedly dying in other circumstances with no benefit to argue over.
Then what should be the focus of the outrage or action or effort demanded? I think that changing one cornercase in the wc law, won't help as many people compared to reminding everyone to get their affairs in order.
Finally this is Not to say you can't do both, just that this cornercase has way too much focus on 1 aspect of 1 benefit because its a somewhat weird and new and odd. Sure change the rule and clarify and maybe 2 or 3 more families get increased benefits moving forward, but that does nothing for the buckets of survivors where wc didnt apply.
where do i allocate my internet outrage points for this update related to benefits and money? maybe 15% on the wc rule, 85% on the guy; (Note: outrage on the accident itself already expended back in first post and dwarfs this update ).
get your affairs in order people
Just because this is a new story of a benefit that got reduced somehow draws the focus to elevates the wc as the one magical thing that should've covered every kind of bad event and made everything right when clearly its not.
My point was to look beyond overfocusing on this one corner scenario and think about all similar surviving families that may face a similar financial predicament, what would be the probability that the cause that put them there falls under this wc decision versus unexpectedly dying in other circumstances with no benefit to argue over.
Then what should be the focus of the outrage or action or effort demanded? I think that changing one cornercase in the wc law, won't help as many people compared to reminding everyone to get their affairs in order.
Finally this is Not to say you can't do both, just that this cornercase has way too much focus on 1 aspect of 1 benefit because its a somewhat weird and new and odd. Sure change the rule and clarify and maybe 2 or 3 more families get increased benefits moving forward, but that does nothing for the buckets of survivors where wc didnt apply.
where do i allocate my internet outrage points for this update related to benefits and money? maybe 15% on the wc rule, 85% on the guy; (Note: outrage on the accident itself already expended back in first post and dwarfs this update ).
get your affairs in order people
Last edited:
