It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by C09JayLT
reply to post by Danbones
Thanks for your underwhelming help there.
Originally posted by CREAM
For those who dont understand why this is unfair, this is how I see it-
Fisher Joe - Is owed $20,000 in claims. He works for BP to clean up and earns $5,000. The 5k is subtracted from the 20k and he gets 15k in claims.
Fisher Joe received $20,000 total from BP.
Fisher Bob - Also is owed $20,000 in claims. He does not work in the clean up.
Fisher Bod received $20,000 total from BP.
Now Fisher Joe is pissed he worked for BP for no reason! He could have relaxed like Bob and still received the same amount of money from BP.
Am I on the right track here? If so, BP is obviously out of line.
[edit on 22-7-2010 by CREAM]
The Cato Institute’s nationally and internationally recognized Centers and Projects tackle a wide range of topics, including health care, education, environment and energy, foreign policy, and international human rights. Scholars in these Centers and Projects vigorously apply America’s founding principles to key issues of the day, and are committed to countering the continued expansion of government beyond its constitutional constraints, and to confronting escalating attacks on individual rights.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by Megiddodiddo
claims are against loss of businesses, Livelihoods, Environments, lifestyles, health, and freedom of mobility. It's to compensate people who have bee adversely assaulted by BP's stupidity. It's to compensate the children who's lives are going to be turned upside down.
Do you have any compassion within you to fathom anything like this?
Those claims aren't affected by this decision. The fishermen are being employed right now by BP and those wages will be deducted from their eventual claims for lost income. What's wrong with that decision? It seems fair to me and many other posters.
You have chosen to practically kill your own thread with accusations, therefore leaving out the possibility of any meaningful discussion because you only want to see this issue they way you see it
Originally posted by MaxBlack
This same crooked corrupt practice is the normal trick that the federal government does because I know. I worked two retirements and can only collect one. How is that fair? It isn't and that is why it is there. It is there to prevent paying those that have duly worked and qualified for the second retirement.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Like it or not, the law is on BP's side on this issue. Initially, these folks had a "lost wage" claim. However, once gainfully employed, they no longer suffered lost wages; therefore, they have no claim for the lost wages. This is a fundamental of insurance and insurance laws.
These people should have sat on their duffs and not taken the BP clean-up jobs. Then they could have simply sat back and collected their lost wages with legitimate claims.
For these people to submit a claim for lost wages, when they are not losing wages.....well, that's borderline insurance fraud....and insurance fraud = higher premiums for us all.
Just my 2-cents