War Widow Turns to Charity

[a_unique_person]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6403829%255E662,00.html



IT was only after her US Marine husband was killed in Iraq that Australian war widow Janina Bitz learned his life insurance policy did not cover such an event.

Since the March 23 death of Sgt Michael Bitz, one of 28 US soldiers killed that day near Nasiriya, Janina and her three young children have been surviving on social security and veterans benefits.

Yesterday Mrs Bitz dropped her initial resistance to charity and became the first Iraqi war widow to accept a cheque for $20,000 from a fund set up by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Maverick's basketball team.



It appears to work like this.

You can't get life insurance that actually covers war.
If your partner dies, you get a piddling little pension.
While you can, you take the handouts, because there won't be any more coming after the fuss dies down.

How is a soldier supposed to provide for his family if he dies in combat? Did he just get the wrong life insurance policy? (No normal insurance company that I know of would cover death in war).

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6403829%255E662,00.html



It appears to work like this.

You can't get life insurance that actually covers war.
If your partner dies, you get a piddling little pension.
While you can, you take the handouts, because there won't be any more coming after the fuss dies down.

How is a soldier supposed to provide for his family if he dies in combat? Did he just get the wrong life insurance policy? (No normal insurance company that I know of would cover death in war).
Hey, we support the troops.

[UnrepentantSinner]

At the very least, she's getting $250,000 from his SGLI (http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/default.htm).

SGLI btw a_u_p is life insurance that pays if a soldier is killed in war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
At the very least, she's getting $250,000 from his SGLI (http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/default.htm).

SGLI btw a_u_p is life insurance that pays if a soldier is killed in war.

So why does she say his didn't? Are there some reason soldiers who cannot get it? If he already had some, would it have cost him to transfer it? Is it something you have to take out separately? I would have thought that all people in an organisation such at the army would have had automatic cover. That is the way it works in Australia.

[reprise]

The way I read the news story, the widow is referring to her husband's regular life insurance policy - as you quite rightly pointed out, no regular life insurance policy covers for death resulting from an act of war.

If I'm reading the SGLI website correctly, the MAXIMUM amount of coverage they offer is $250,000 - an amount which would fall far short of discharging a mortgage and providing for a family.

While SGLI coverage appears to be automatic unless you elect to decline it (I'm wondering why you would), it seems that you do need to nominate a beneficiary. It's possible that Sgt Blitz had neither declined SGLI coverage OR nominated a beneficiary, and that his widow was therefore not AWARE of her entitlement.

SGLI FAQ (http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/sgli%20faq.htm#11)

[Denise]

My friends son was in the Army and he commited suicide. They paid his family 100,000. I would imagine that payment for combat death would be much higher. Yes, I was shocked that they paid out money for a suicide.

[Denise]

Does anyone know how much SS she will get per month?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Denise
My friends son was in the Army and he commited suicide. They paid his family 100,000. I would imagine that payment for combat death would be much higher. Yes, I was shocked that they paid out money for a suicide.

I don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia death by suicide is only an exclusion for the first 13 months of the policy - after that, the insurance company will pay the full amount just as they would if death was from another cause (there's an actuarial logic behind this, but I'm sure no-one wants to hear it).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So why does she say his didn't? Are there some reason soldiers who cannot get it? If he already had some, would it have cost him to transfer it? Is it something you have to take out separately? I would have thought that all people in an organisation such at the army would have had automatic cover. That is the way it works in Australia.

Your answers are provided in reprises comments above and the link I provided. It appears that Sgt. Bitz had another insurance policy that won't pay a claim on a war death.

From the Dallas Morning News:
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — Weeks after the young mother learned her Marine husband was killed in Iraq, she learned she wouldn't be able to benefit from his ill-advised life insurance policy. On top of her grief she wondered how she would support her 2-year-old son and newborn twins.

I have insufficient information as to why she might not be getting the settlement from SGLI. It's provided to all servicemen and as I said, does pay claims on wartime deaths. It's possible that he might have forgone it, or named someone else as his beneficiary. I'll need more info.

[reprise]

Somewhat off-topic, but SGLI must be the only insurer in the world which is actually reducing its premium rates (http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/sgliPremiums.htm) for life insurance.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by reprise
Somewhat off-topic, but SGLI must be the only insurer in the world which is actually reducing its premium rates (http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/sgliPremiums.htm) for life insurance.

It's the least we can do what with all the cutbacks in health care for military retirees.

And I need to retract my "at least $250,000" which I didn't do above. You're right 'up to" would have been more accurate. I had misrecollected my own experiences.

If indeed Sgt. Bitz had forgone SGLI, he was a fool to do so.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

How is a soldier supposed to provide for his family if he dies in combat? Did he just get the wrong life insurance policy? (No normal insurance company that I know of would cover death in war).

How does anyone provide for the ones they leave behind in the event of their untimely demise?

This woman has my sympathy, along with the families of the thousands of people who died yesterday; any number of which will never see the $20,000 this woman humbled herself to accept.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Denise
My friends son was in the Army and he commited suicide. They paid his family 100,000. I would imagine that payment for combat death would be much higher. Yes, I was shocked that they paid out money for a suicide.

Depends on when he died, the $250,000 limit is only a couple of years old. When I first came in in '90 it was only $100,000.

I only have $100,000 in insurance from SGLI-I am single and don't have to worry about taking care of a family and I can put the premium difference to better use. Unfortunately, every time I transfer duty stations I have to do more paperwork because the insurance company automatically bumps it back up to $250,000.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Agammamon


Depends on when he died, the $250,000 limit is only a couple of years old. When I first came in in '90 it was only $100,000.

I only have $100,000 in insurance from SGLI-I am single and don't have to worry about taking care of a family and I can put the premium difference to better use. Unfortunately, every time I transfer duty stations I have to do more paperwork because the insurance company automatically bumps it back up to $250,000.

So the premium is 'optional'. For a family in a tight situation, with young children, the kids might get priority.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
My friends son was in the Army and he commited suicide. They paid his family 100,000. I would imagine that payment for combat death would be much higher. Yes, I was shocked that they paid out money for a suicide.

Paying out money for suicide is standard over in Australia, as long as you don't do it too soon after the policy is taken out.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So the premium is 'optional'. For a family in a tight situation, with young children, the kids might get priority. I know this is going to sound kind of wild and far out, but married people in a tight situation, might even consider putting off having kids for a while.

Why is the welfare of kids suddenly such a big concern, after they have been born into a situation that obviously is not very conducive to their welfare in the first place?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I know this is going to sound kind of wild and far out, but married people in a tight situation, might even consider putting off having kids for a while.

Why is the welfare of kids suddenly such a big concern, after they have been born into a situation that obviously is not very conducive to their welfare in the first place?

It appears that western society is going through a phenomenon that Marshall McLuen described as 'The Flip'. From a world in which too many people have too many kids, we now have a society in which you shouldn't have kids.

I had kids, and wasn't sure if I could afford them. One thing I have learned, if you wait till conditions are ideal to have kids, you will never have them.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I had kids, and wasn't sure if I could afford them. One thing I have learned, if you wait till conditions are ideal to have kids, you will never have them.

And amid all the concern (questionable concern at that, since it seems to have to do with bashing the evil system, rather than genuine concern for any person..) for the left behind family of this soldier (higher than average likelihood of dying in combat ), there is no room to consider, that some situations may be more condusive to family planning than others?

Well shucks, we've always done it this way..... Let's just breed and see what happens..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes


And amid all the concern (questionable concern at that, since it seems to have to do with bashing the evil system, rather than genuine concern for any person..) for the left behind family of this soldier (higher than average likelihood of dying in combat ), there is no room to consider, that some situations may be more condusive to family planning than others?

Well shucks, we've always done it this way..... Let's just breed and see what happens..

I am questioning the "Saving Jessica Lynch" concern, just as much as you are questioning mine.

(According to one story, the Iraqi staff from the hospital tried to take her to the Americans, till they were threatened with getting shot to pieces).

The only reason the human race has lasted this long is because they have not waited for the ideal conditions to breed. Lets face it, if there is one state that is worse to raise kids in than an army wife, it would have to be in the stone age. Lots of wild animals around, and a lousy pension plan.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Lets face it, if there is one state that is worse to raise kids in than an army wife, it would have to be in the stone age. Lots of wild animals around, and a lousy pension plan.
I think that was my point..

But you seemed to have missed this one:

"Well shucks, we've always done it this way..... Let's just breed and see what happens.. "


Forbid we should use any of our technological and cultural advances to plan our reproduction practices, based on our ability to give children a more enjoyable experience.

What worked for the stone age is good enough for me....

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So the premium is 'optional'. For a family in a tight situation, with young children, the kids might get priority.

Its $18/mo for $250,000. I don't know how many families have had to beg for money at the Exchange to cover the cost of this insurance.