A friend of mine sent me this story about a little boy, Sam Feagan, who died in a house fire. It was originally printed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and happened in Snellville, GA. She’s a friend of the family, and Sam was about Jessie’s age — which, I guess, is what strikes so close to home — Military insurance didn’t cover boy because he didn’t live with soldier.
It happened about 3 weeks ago. Sam was visiting his mother, Andrea, and stepfather, Spc. Wayne Smallwood. It’s sad because a child died, and what’s sadder is that because he did not live with Smallwood, the military insurance won’t cover him. What’s worse, his parents did not have life or funeral insurance for Sam. They’ve received assistance from Red Cross, and to help defray funeral costs, the family has established the Sam Feagan Memorial Fund at the local Bank of America branch.
Now, my party (Libertarians) are big on not depending on the government for anything, that you should support yourself if you are capable. But what in instances like these? Yes, the parents should have had insurance, but let’s be honest … how many parents really prepare for that sort of thing?
In my opinion, the military insurance should have still covered him — regardless of whether the boy lived with Spc. Smallwood or not. What do you think?
Doc
Man, this is horrible. I thought that a dependant’s medical needs were covered at least until 18 if their parent(s) is in the military.
Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe insurance companies? Thought for another day there…
Nicki
“I thought that a dependant’s medical needs were covered at least until 18 if their parent(s) is in the military.”
I thought so too, but apparently one of the stipulations is that you have to live with the enlisted parent(s). :(
“Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe insurance companies?”
Ditto that. :evil: