Republicans voting againt 9-11 responders health bill.

[Baculus]

I looked back a few pages and couldn't find a thread on this issue, unless I missed it entirely (which is possible, since I don't post/read here much at all anymore). So, I was wondering to people's reactions to this story.

Just a bit of background: The bill in question is the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. Here is the purpose of the bill, as stated by its summary:

"This bill is designed to improve health services and provide financial compensation for 9/11 first responders who were exposed to dangerous toxins and are now sick as a result. It would establish a federal program to provide medical monitoring and treatment for first responders, provide initial health screenings for people who were in the area at the time of the attack and may be at risk, and reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for losses and harm as an alternative to the current litigation system."

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show

As a group, the Republicans all voted against this bill. Why? There have been various reasons given for their opposition vote, none of which are very convincing. Take, for example, Republican Rep. Thune's explanation that the Bush tax cuts had a "deadline" on them and were more important than the 9-11 Responders bill. But apparently one of the primary reasons for the opposition came due to the closure of a tax loop hole in the bill which would have helped to pay for its cost. As ThinkProgress writes, "While Republicans quietly snuffed out efforts to compensate 9/11 heroes, they were aided by a quiet lobbying campaign by the powerful lobbying front — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

Continuing in the article: "The Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States."

Yes -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that self-proclaimed patriotic entity which heavily back Republican candidates, that fought tooth and nail in opposition to health care reform for American citizens, opposed this bill since it would have affected foreign businesses. As a consequence, Republicans felt right in line to support the Chamber's efforts, no matter its affect on the health status of those 9-11 emergency responders. It's almost as if the Republican party has become a paid-for extension of the Chamber, voting for and against whatever it wishes, which, coupled with the GOP's determination to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy, even if it affects middle class tax cuts, makes me wonder to whose interests they are purveying. With that thought in mind, I have no idea anyone would believe the U.S. Chamber of Congress has our best interests at heart. Even worse, they helped to frame the debate, and millions of Americans voted on a political script that the Chamber helped to create and fund.

Apparently, those 9-11 responders are good enough for photo ops and good enough to mention whenever a Republican wants to appeal to the conservative masses and their patriotism, but they ain't good enough to be helped when they need it the most.

More from TP: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/17/chamber-911-responders/

The Daily Show episode dedicated to this issue:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

By the way, I like that fellow's response to the Republican moans of anguish that they may have to work after Christmas on legislation . . .

[joeknows]

they are probably doing it for the same reasons that they created more war veterans while defunding veterans programs.... they are greedy and stupid....

[Baculus]

they are probably doing it for the same reasons that they created more war veterans while defunding veterans programs.... they are greedy and stupid....

What bothers me is how the Republican supporters readily repeat the ready-made excuses. Here is what I saw from the Yahoo comments section for this subject:

(1) The emergency personal knew the risks of their job! It's their problem! Which, BTW, seems to be the right-wing response for everything which ails society.

"It's your problem!"

(2) The bill was written off as a "union-giveaway," which is another right-wing excuse to oppose nearly any sort of legislation.

"It's the UNIONS who want this money!"

To the degree that the Right hates organized labor, it is rather disheartening . . .

So, by either blaming the people at the heart of the matter (police/firemen) or blaming unions, any sort of acceptable excuse to oppose legislation seems to be acceptable by conservatives.

[Seabee1973]

Do we really need a fourth program to help these people there is already 3 others

[Veretax]

Frankly this kind of bill should not be voted on in a lame duck session of congress. If it came up when the new session starts, then I'd be willing to listen to arguments, as it stands, all the D's are doing is trying to ram through all the ideas they had no urgency for earlier in the year, and frankly its disgusting.

[Baculus]

Do we really need a fourth program to help these people there is already 3 others

Why would you make this comment without providing anything about these "three" other programs? Especially since the opposite is true, in that 9-11 workers have been denied healh care, and some of these workers plagued with health care/costs issues for years due to long-term affects from toxins at the WTC site.

This issue deserves more than a shallow response . . .

As a suggestion, maybe you should read about someone such as John Feal, profiled in the below-linked article:

"Aftermath Reflections: John battled with a host of health costs after being denied any benefits due to what he calls an “arbitrary exclusion in the law…he and many other workers who were injured during a 2-week window at Ground Zero did not qualify for the 9/11 Relief Fund."

http://www.onearth.org/node/1706

[Burgold]

We tried discussing it here.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?341073-CNN-GOP-Filibuster-Kills-9-11-First-Responder-Bill

It's certainly a topic worth more attention though. Shameful. Apparently, the only thing Republicans on the Hill believe in are tax cuts everything. Everything else and everyone else can pretty much go to...

[joeknows]

Do we really need a fourth program to help these people there is already 3 others

im guessing that those 3 are insufficient so therefore a 4th is needed.

kinda crazy how logic works huh?

[Baculus]

Frankly this kind of bill should not be voted on in a lame duck session of congress. If it came up when the new session starts, then I'd be willing to listen to arguments, as it stands, all the D's are doing is trying to ram through all the ideas they had no urgency for earlier in the year, and frankly its disgusting.

The problem here is misinformation: This is the THIRD time this bill has been brought up for passage. Let me repeat that: This is the TIME TIME the Democrats tried to pass the bill. They are not trying to JAM it -- the Democrats know that it won't get passed by the Republicans, and this is a last chance effort.

Here is a video from the first time, in July of this year, when it initially failed passage. (The second attempt was in September, when it passed in the House, but the GOP fillibustered the bill in the Senate . . .)

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/911-heroes-denied-healthcare-gop

So, tell me again that the Democrats are "disgusting" when the GOP have voted against this THREE times? Yeah, I am sure you and the other Repubicans woudl be "willing to listen to arguments." Color me skeptical . . .

What's odd/funny, though, is how nearly a half-year long legislative effort becomes "jamming" something through Congress. But hey, conservatives claimed that a two-year long health care debate was also "jamming" the legislation through, so I guess right-wingers just have a fixtation on "jam it, cram it, ram it," and whatever variations of those words they want to trot out whenever they oppose some legislation.

wonder, though, where these folks were when scant months passed before the use of force for Iraq was authorized in Congress . . .

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 12:38 PM ----------

im guessing that those 3 are insufficient so therefore a 4th is needed.

kinda crazy how logic works huh?

What three? And logic? It SURE would be nice to see some of that . . . funny how you brought it up.

You know, when you debate something, it's cnsidered good form to actually present the "evidence" from your side of the debate . . . Of course, that doesn't stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry to make pronouncements on this, as if right-wing radio and TV is actualy presenting anything informative on this.

Since you won't do that, I will.

In Nov. of this year, a settlement with the city and some 10,500 people were reached for $625 million. But, in addition to these plaintiffs in the case, there are also thousands of other workers who are not covered under the settlement, as this article discusses here:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/19/ny.911.workers.settlement/index.html

The idea with the federa legislation is to cover all 9-11 workers and resonders, long-term, including those denied coverage for their conditions, especially those caused by toxic conditions at the site.

I wonder if you guys, in this claim of "three programs," are also talking about the death benefits program signed by Pataki in 2006.

As it is, the Bush-led HHS dept. hadn't even properly setup, by 2008, the program to help the 9-11 workers.

Some details:

"In March, the CDC announced a solicitation for sources to provide federally-funded medical monitoring and treatment to thousands of 9/11 responders who live outside metropolitan New York City. (Click here for a copy of the CDC’s announcement.) In June, the CDC awarded a $14 million contract to LHI to provide these services.

"The national 9/11 health program has been fraught with delays. In December 2007, the Administration suddenly announced that it was abandoning its initial plan to create the program . At the time, the CDC expressed concerns over the availability of continued funding, even though Congress was in the process of approving another $108 million for 9/11 health care.

"According to the federally-funded World Trade Center Health Registry, people from all 50 states and 431 of 435 Congressional districts nationwide were in lower Manhattan on or after 9/11 and now have serious concerns about their health. In all, more than 10,000 of the 71,000 people enrolled in the Registry live outside the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut."

http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1710&Itemid=61

I guess the two failed programs listed here are the two other "programs" that you guys think are adequate, eh? Let me guess -- Rush Limbaugh are someone such as that expessed that opinion?

Again - it is sad to see the Right hold these people up as heroes, but to get a non-commital shrug when it comes to their well-being after they have serve their use as political props.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 12:38 PM ----------

I really wish my new posts wouldn't append to previous ones.

[joeknows]

"You know, when you debate something, it's cnsidered good form to actually present the "evidence" from your side of the debate . . . Of course, that doesn't stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry to make pronouncements on this, as if right-wing radio and TV is actualy presenting anything informative on this.

Since you won't do that, I will."

umm baculus.... ^^^ up there^^^ where you quoted me.... i was using sarcasm against the statement seabee1973 made about there already being 3 programs and not needing a fourth.

im sure you erroneously thought i was making a stand AGAINST your OP.... when in fact if you scroll up you will see that i am in TOTAL agreement with you.

therefore im not charged with the responsibility of defending said statements....

im sure this was an honest mistake on your part...

[Teller]

My post in the other thread:

"I hope there was something else going on here; like someone tried to attach something to it that would make it legal to eat babies, and that was the reason for the filibuster.

On the surface though, this is dead wrong, and those responsible for the filibuster should be horribly ashamed. Utterly disgraceful."

Sorry, Baculus, but I'm a conservative too. Now what have we learned about broad generalizations?

[SnyderShrugged]

did they come up with a plan to pay for it yet? If not, it shouldnt pass, regardless of good intentions. It hurts them and everyone else if it causes more debt. period.

There are better ways to help the 9/11 first responders and it doesnt have to be a new bill. Simply add them to the VA system and use special pre-qualified rates for them specifically. No need for more legislation for a relatively small group of people.

[bcl05]

I truly don't understand what the opposition to this bill is. If the bill was to give all the first responders a free cadillac and comprehensive health care for life, they still deserve it. The republicans are incredibly hypocritical and cold-hearted to be nickel-and-diming the first responders. The democrats are incredibly stupid and incompetent to not be able to get this passed and to use it against the republicans. I can't believe they didn't make a significant issue of this around the mid-terms. They're all useless.

[Burgold]

did they come up with a plan to pay for it yet? If not, it shouldnt pass, regardless of good intentions. It hurts them and everyone else if it causes more debt. period.

There are better ways to help the 9/11 first responders and it doesnt have to be a new bill. Simply add them to the VA system and use special pre-qualified rates for them specifically. No need for more legislation for a relatively small group of people.

I'm not opposed to that option... on the other hand, some will tell you that the VA is already seriously underfunded (and it is) and adding another population to serve it without allocating funding isn't a great idea. On top of which, the mission of the VA is pretty specifically defined and they would have to re-write a major part of it to allow the VA to mobilize to help this population. The VA is organized and designed only to help a specific population and all the forms and bureaucracy is built around that. Do you have any idea how much rejiggering it would be to serve this new population?

It's not as simple as... oh let them do it? And let's not provide them funds for the additional infrastructure, administrative, personnel, or medical equipment, drugs supplies it would require.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm not opposed to that option... on the other hand, some will tell you that the VA is already seriously underfunded (and it is) and adding another population to serve it without allocating funding isn't a great idea. On top of which, the mission of the VA is pretty specifically defined and they would have to re-write a major part of it to allow the VA to mobilize to help this population. The VA is organized and designed only to help a specific population and all the forms and bureaucracy is built around that. Do you have any idea how much rejiggering it would be to serve this new population?

It's not as simple as... oh let them do it? And let's not provide them funds for the additional infrastructure, administrative, personnel, or medical equipment, drugs supplies it would require.

There arent anywhere near enough actual first responders to call them a "population". The VA is just one of numerous options that could be considered that are outside of this bill. Like AI said, show me how its paid for without increasing debt and I'd support it right out of the gate. Show me how this plan was conmpared to all other options and that its better, then I'll get up in arms about not caring for 9/11 first responders. Otherwise what we see here is yet another eo=pisode of kabuki political liberal theater for political gain.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 10:08 AM ----------

I truly don't understand what the opposition to this bill is. If the bill was to give all the first responders a free cadillac and comprehensive health care for life, they still deserve it. The republicans are incredibly hypocritical and cold-hearted to be nickel-and-diming the first responders. The democrats are incredibly stupid and incompetent to not be able to get this passed and to use it against the republicans. I can't believe they didn't make a significant issue of this around the mid-terms. They're all useless.

because its not a significant issue, regardless of the warm fuzzy political spin around it. There are better ways tyo care for firast responders that dont need a new bill that cant be paid for.

[chipwhich]

There arent anywhere near enough actual first responders to call them a "population". The VA is just one of numerous options that could be considered that are outside of this bill. Like AI said, show me how its paid for without increasing debt and I'd support it right out of the gate. Show me how this plan was conmpared to all other options and that its better, then I'll get up in arms about not caring for 9/11 first responders. Otherwise what we see here is yet another eo=pisode of kabuki political liberal theater for political gain.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 10:08 AM ----------

because its not a significant issue, regardless of the warm fuzzy political spin around it. There are better ways tyo care for firast responders that dont need a new bill that cant be paid for.

Well said.

/thread

[Ellis]

I knew nothing of this Bill until the last fews days. Saw some article about Jon Stewart dedicating his final show of the year to the issue. I saw the video of the 4 first-responders he interviewed who have many health problems and are dying.

What exactly is the problem? Why are these guys being forced into early retirement (as opposed to a desk job) and pushed out of healthcare coverage? Why is it so ****ing hard for us to just take care of our own?

I try not to get emotional or brash about things and try to see things from both points of view... but... **** the republicans.

And yeah, those guys did know the risk when they went down there on 9-11. AND THEY WENT. I love what all those guys did for the nation in that tragic moment. Is it too much to ask to give them a dignified, compassionate exit?

[Burgold]

There arent anywhere near enough actual first responders to call them a "population".

Do you have any idea how much red tape and how much money it would cost to rejigger the whole VA system to incorporate a group that you say is to small to call a population? Isn't that a reason to use means outside of the VA

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 10:08 AM ----------

[/color]

because its not a significant issue, regardless of the warm fuzzy political spin around it. There are better ways tyo care for firast responders that dont need a new bill that cant be paid for.

There are better ways to care for first responders that have no cost associated? Really? Do tell. I'm all ears. Btw, the fact that you think it's not a significant issue is even more reason to get it done. If this is a small deal, given what they've sacrificed for us, shouldn't we do the least we can do? It's like all the vets who've been underserved. Saying we appreciate you as long as it doesn't inconvenience us or cost us anything is a horrible sentiment.

[TimmySmith]

The bill was for 7.6 BILLION. There were less than 10,000 first responders, all of whom have prior health coverage, and a majority of whom settled a class action lawsuit already. Exactly how much will ever be enough?

[Baculus]

There arent anywhere near enough actual first responders to call them a "population".

This bill potentially involves thousands of people -- how many do you need for a "population" -- millions?

The VA is just one of numerous options that could be considered that are outside of this bill.

Which would mean more funding for the VA . . . you know, the government run health care system.

Like AI said, show me how its paid for without increasing debt and I'd support it right out of the gate.

Easy -- reduce corporate welfare spending, close tax loopholes, or allow the top tax rate to increase back to 39%.

Oh wait, scratch that idea. The GOP felt that continuing the Bush tax cuts was more important.

Show me how this plan was conmpared to all other options and that its better, then I'll get up in arms about not caring for 9/11 first responders. Otherwise what we see here is yet another eo=pisode of kabuki political liberal theater for political gain.

There are many real people affected by this issue. This ain't fun and games. What's worse -- teh supposed "kabuki theater" of liberals trying to get this bill passed to help these workers, or the theater of the "conservatives" decrying a $7 billion dollar bill after we spent hundreds of billion on unfunded programs and tax breaks?

Talking about the theater of the absurd.

It reminds me of Jan Brewer, gov. of AZ, axing a $1.4 million dollar Medicaid organ transplant programs to save money (a decision that has already led to the death of one person), while she allocates tends of millions of funding for privately run prisons.

Our priorities are screwed up.

because its not a significant issue, regardless of the warm fuzzy political spin around it. There are better ways tyo care for firast responders that dont need a new bill that cant be paid for.

How is this not a "significant issue"? Did you even watch the Daily Show episodes on this?

I hate to say it, but you, and many on the Right, come across as extremely callous with your response. Extremely callous.

It's nine years after 9-11: When will we finally see this "better care" to which you allude?

[Ellis]

It's nine years after 9-11: When will we finally see this "better care" to which you allude?

Once they all die, they won't need the Bill at all.

So patriotic of them.

[oisn1]

Continuing in the article: "The Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States."

Can people read the articles before spouting off that the bill can't be paid for? I mean seriously, it's right in the first post. Let's assume that closing the tax loophole funds the bill, is there any reason to oppose this? Shouldn't we punish foreign companies that evade our tax laws, or maybe we should just give them tax cuts too.

Stop being so partisan and just put the blame where it belongs. The Zadroga bill is a standalone bill (not tacked on to other legislation) that supports 9/11 responders who got sick from helping during 9/11. The only reason to oppose this bill is if you are bought out by Big Business and seek their approval instead of the American people. End of story.

[SnyderShrugged]

This bill potentially involves thousands of people -- how many do you need for a "population" -- millions?

whatever it is, its not large enough to say this bill is the ONLY way to fix it.

Which would mean more funding for the VA . . . you know, the government run health care system

Easy -- reduce corporate welfare spending, close tax loopholes, or allow the top tax rate to increase back to 39%.

Oh wait, scratch that idea. The GOP felt that continuing the Bush tax cuts was more important.

red herring some, but I agree about reducing all corporate welfarfe, that makes sense. Last I saw, it was Obama and the Dems that proposed extending the Bush tax cuts too. They all suck abd the sooner you see this and take off the party blinders the more intelligent you will sound

There are many real people affected by this issue. This ain't fun and games. What's worse -- teh supposed "kabuki theater" of liberals trying to get this bill passed to help these workers, or the theater of the "conservatives" decrying a $7 billion dollar bill after we spent hundreds of billion on unfunded programs and tax breaks?

Talking about the theater of the absurd.

Not nearly as absurd as the point that obviously went way over your head, the point that there are probably better ways to care for the first responders that arent nearly as inefficient and costly. Show me where those were explored and then your theater wil be accepted.

It reminds me of Jan Brewer, gov. of AZ, axing a $1.4 million dollar Medicaid organ transplant programs to save money (a decision that has already led to the death of one person), while she allocates tends of millions of funding for privately run prisons.

Our priorities are screwed up.

Often they are, but it doesnt have anything to do with this bill nor thread

How is this not a "significant issue"? Did you even watch the Daily Show episodes on this?

I hate to say it, but you, and many on the Right, come across as extremely callous with your response. Extremely callous.

It's nine years after 9-11: When will we finally see this "better care" to which you allude?

Sorry if being responsible is seen as callous. for the umpteenth time, show how its paid for without increasing the debt, show where it was compared to numerous other options that could also work and I would support this. Nothing callous except its reality.

You are a great kabuki actor bac! You did exactly what I was speaking of. someone whould be bringing you flowers while you take a bow during a standing ovation.

[Bang]

Continuing in the article: "The Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States."

Can people read the articles before spouting off that the bill can't be paid for? I mean seriously, it's right in the first post. Let's assume that closing the tax loophole funds the bill, is there any reason to oppose this? Shouldn't we punish foreign companies that evade our tax laws, or maybe we should just give them tax cuts too.

Stop being so partisan and just put the blame where it belongs. The Zadroga bill is a standalone bill (not tacked on to other legislation) that supports 9/11 responders who got sick from helping during 9/11. The only reason to oppose this bill is if you are bought out by Big Business and seek their approval instead of the American people. End of story.

:applause:

This is shameful. Call them heroes and treat them like dirt.

~Bang

[Baculus]

The bill was for 7.6 BILLION. There were less than 10,000 first responders, all of whom have prior health coverage, and a majority of whom settled a class action lawsuit already. Exactly how much will ever be enough?

The class action lawsuit covered 10,500 by itself, and to quote from the GOP's own website: "As of March 31, 2010, a total of 52,700 individuals were enrolled in the WTC Responders programs."