Republicans voting againt 9-11 responders health bill.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Here's how stupid the Dems are. Because they actually want this, they will horse trade and give in to the Republicans on some other issue just to get their votes. Republicans will then claim credit for getting BOTH things done.

Um, isn't getting it done and taking care of these people worth it?

[Burgold]

I suggest hearing what I say rather than interpreting things I didnt Burg

I'll try, but help me out and write more clearly

[SnyderShrugged]

I'll try, but help me out and write more clearly

Like when I said I'd support it more if they had a plan to pay for it?

[Burgold]

Like when I said I'd support it more if they had a plan to pay for it?

and then when it was pointed out that they did have a plan to pay for it you didn't say you'd now support it, but pivoted and said you'd be more inclined to support... if all other options have been examined and ruled out.

In other words, as soon as one condition was met... you added another. Neither are unreasonable stipulations, mind you, but it is a change in position.

Edit: and I bet if the Dems claimed to have researched all possible alternative strategies, you wouldn't believe them and would demand that all Republican and other groups outside of the Democratic circle had not been ruled out and that these options needed to be evaluated too before action was taken.

[SnyderShrugged]

and then when it was pointed out that they did have a plan to pay for it you didn't say you'd now support it, but pivoted and said you'd be more inclined to support... if all other options have been examined and ruled out.

In other words, as soon as one condition was met... you added another. Neither are unreasonable stipulations, mind you, but it is a change in position.

Edit: and I bet if the Dems claimed to have researched all possible alternative strategies, you wouldn't believe them and would demand that an outside group be given a shot to work out some other options because politicians are too corrupt and never get it right.

you'd lose that bet

[Burgold]

That would be a good thing, but I think I'd win... I don't think you could be convinced that a government designed plan was ever efficient or best.

(Mind you, if you do believe that I can't really blame you for it. Lot of evidence out there supporting gov't incompetence)

[SnyderShrugged]

That would be a good thing, but I think I'd win... I don't think you could be convinced that a government designed plan was ever efficient or best.

Sure I could be convinced, it just takes more than platitudes to do the convincing. Show me data and as always show me how it can be done that is fiscally sound and does not increase individual taxation or debt and we have a winner.

[Burgold]

Just for curiousity, in your view what was the last efficient and well designed thing the government has produced that didn't have a questionable price tag?

(For what it's worth, I think I'd have a tough time answering this question)

[Veretax]

So this bill limits it to 25K persons? Why is that number of all possible ones chosen anyways?

[oisn1]

That being the whole point of this exercise. It's a talking point for Olbermann, Stewart and the rest. It is supposed to energize the base and it happens on both sides. This basically is the flip side of the Mosque issue. Anything 9/11 gets divisive.

Yup, that's all this bill is; just a talking point to make Republicans look bad. This is why partisanship is so damaging to political discourse, because then everything is viewed under a partisan perspective. This bill isn't some hackneyed attempt to score political points, it's a bill to help sick 9/11 responders get health care. It should be a photo-op for all politicians to show that they care, and it's a bill that actually has merit.

I can't believe you're going to compare the Mosque issue to this. The Mosque issue was an ethical issue, and drummed up by fear mongers and news networks. This is a worthwhile bill (funded by closing tax loopholes) that is being held up by corporate shills in the Republican Party. If our politicians were not bought off by Big Business, this wouldn't be an issue. If our politicians were not worried about party scorecards, this would not be an issue. If our population was not worried about blindly supporting "their" team in the face of all logic, this would not be an issue.

---------- Post added December-20th-2010 at 08:19 PM ----------

I agree. I can see where they might not want to have it passed. Are we just going to give lots of money away because of emotion? I don't even know at this point what's in the bill. Just because it says 9/11 doesn't mean that its good for the country. We all collectively, have to pay for this bill. I want to know more about it before I "condemn" anyone.

So I guess you haven't read anything about the bill, have you? The bill is going to get funded by closing tax loopholes on foreign companies.

More importantly, what's good for the country? We can honor our heroes who have sacrificed their bodies for this country and now need help, or nickel-and-dime them and let them suffer. You guys always talk about protecting our own and putting America First, but I guess not. Foreign companies profits come before the American people, it seems.

If you want to know more about the bill, read it. It's online, and free to read and in the OP. How you post a comment about this bill without reading it is mind boggling.

[Madison Redskin]

That being the whole point of this exercise. It's a talking point for Olbermann, Stewart and the rest. It is supposed to energize the base and it happens on both sides. This basically is the flip side of the Mosque issue. Anything 9/11 gets divisive.

Wait, so you're saying this is just a silly little symbolic issue? Tell the tens of thousands who are keenly interested in this bill that they are nothing more than symbols and their concerns are of no real importance.

[TimmySmith]

Yup, that's all this bill is; just a talking point to make Republicans look bad. This is why partisanship is so damaging to political discourse, because then everything is viewed under a partisan perspective. This bill isn't some hackneyed attempt to score political points, it's a bill to help sick 9/11 responders get health care. It should be a photo-op for all politicians to show that they care, and it's a bill that actually has merit.

Do you honestly believe that NYC Firefighters and police officers, who are city employees and union members do not have healthcare? Do you honestly believe that Federal Workers who are eligible do not have health care? Do you really think this whole thing is not a political ploy to scrape another 8.2 billion from taxpayers?

[Thiebear]

When we do decide to pay for it, can it be something real... not the regular crap coming out of congress.

During the process: We'll tax people: (its in court), we'll hit cadillac plans (unions have them) nevermind.

You want to close a loophole and pay for this: Close the loophole FIRST and then state the amount saved .....

Then use that money ... don't "say" your going to do it and then fail.

NY State is offering up 800million:

By Agence France-Presse

Sunday, November 7th, 2010

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/911-rescue-workers-vote-800-million-s...

Thousands of rescue workers sickened after the September 11 attacks in New York have until the end of Monday to accept a settlement that could near 800 million dollars.

A settlement on Friday saw a subgroup of workers compensated 28 million dollars for exposure to debris removed and transferred from Ground Zero to Staten Island by marine transportation company Weeks Marine.

and this:

Lawyers also reached a separate 47.5 million dollar settlement last month with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center.

I hope we make sure the people get more than 10% of it.

This seems to have great info:

What the editorial does not mention . . .

(1) The entire cost of the bill ($7.4 billion) is proposed to be paid for up front. Some did not like the “pay-for,” so five different options to pay for it were put on the table more than a month ago.(2) There is no 9/11 health program authorized now. The “program” is only a series of grants through appropriations bills since FY 2002. (3) The bill adds numerous levels of accountability to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. (4) The Bill does not propose a permanent new entitlement like Social Security. It is a limited multi-year appropriation (justified by the clear federal responsibility) that is limited in duration, dollars available for it, and in terms of numbers of people eligible. (5) Coverage for health conditions is limited to certain 9/11 illnesses only.(6) Some $400 million of the captive fund (federal money) has already been used for plaintiff and defense attorney fees, and an equal amount will go to the responders and volunteers. The alternative proposed in the bill, a Victim Compensation Fund, limits attorney fees to 10 percent, far less than the 35-40 percent, plus costs, taken by lawyers in the litigation.Conservatives need to rethink knee-jerk reactions that the government should not legislate when there is a fundamental governmental responsibility so clearly shown by more than 20 Congressional hearings on the subject.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254782/defending-911-bill-robert-livingston

[Veretax]

So I guess you haven't read anything about the bill, have you? The bill is going to get funded by closing tax loopholes on foreign companies.

First just because so called tax loop holes are closed, does not necessarily mean revenue will increase. It may, or it may not.

Do you honestly believe that NYC Firefighters and police officers, who are city employees and union members do not have healthcare? Do you honestly believe that Federal Workers who are eligible do not have health care? Do you really think this whole thing is not a political ploy to scrape another 8.2 billion from taxpayers?

That may be the case, but I know that some of the volunteers who went to help with the cleanup and rescue that were not from NY were perhaps not so lucky. So I can see the rationale for wanting to help those folks out. I read the bill tonight, and I'm having a hard time understanding why the Right is against this bill, maybe I missed something in its reading, I dunno.

[Madison Redskin]

Do you honestly believe that NYC Firefighters and police officers, who are city employees and union members do not have healthcare? Do you honestly believe that Federal Workers who are eligible do not have health care? Do you really think this whole thing is not a political ploy to scrape another 8.2 billion from taxpayers?

Many of the people who went to ground zero were NOT city, state, or federal employees. Also, what do you think is going to happen to their health insurance if they leave their jobs? Keep making excuses until you are blue in the face and maybe, after you pass out, you will wake up and concede that the GOP is ****ing over people who deserve help.

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 12:29 AM ----------

I read the bill tonight, and I'm having a hard time understanding why the Right is against this bill, maybe I missed something in its reading, I dunno.

Perhaps if those first responders made 7-figure salaries, the GOP would find it in their hearts to help out. I hear they supported a bill that will extend hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that will benefit the wealthy. Apparently, another $8.2B to help out those pesky 9/11 first responders is just a bit too much.

I used to be a right of center. It's **** like this that pushed me left of center.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I guess it's also a talking point for Shep Smith and Chris Wallace on FoxNews

[Jumbo]

G.A.C.O.L.B: I guess it's also a talking point for Shep Smith and Chris Wallace on FoxNews

I know Shep is sometimes regarded as a "token non****wad right-wing nutjob" on Fox News, but I must post respect (as one of the harshest critics of FoxNews and their "fans). I have great respect for what Shep said here and how he does his job with what I see as conscience and heart.

[Veretax]

Perhaps if those first responders made 7-figure salaries, the GOP would find it in their hearts to help out. I hear they supported a bill that will extend hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that will benefit the wealthy. Apparently, another $8.2B to help out those pesky 9/11 first responders is just a bit too much.

I used to be a right of center. It's **** like this that pushed me left of center.

I somehow doubt their salary is the reason. Yes Conservatives want to keep a clamp on spending, but there has to be a reason this bill came up what was it 3, 4 times this past session only to be voted down. My question is this... Didn't they already pass legislation that covers at least some of these folks?

I don't have an answer, and since I don't have a republican senator or congressman I'm not sure I could even find out why they voted against it.

[Burgold]

I somehow doubt their salary is the reason. Yes Conservatives want to keep a clamp on spending,

I have a hard time believing that Conservatives want to keep a clamp on spending. It just doesn't jibe with their actions. I hear them say it all the time, but when you look at what they do and not what they say... it doesn't fit. Heck, look at their first actions. Their first actions were designed to massively increase the deficit via tax cuts and didn't associate any spending cuts with it, but did add to our overall spending.

So, for the "Conservatives" in Congress, saying no here is not about spending. It must be about something else. My guess is that they don't want to pass anything that makes the President look good. That is more important to them than anything. The Tax Cuts were clearly their victory over the President. Helping First Responders would have been a good thing the Democrats did and therefore it must not be allowed.

[TimmySmith]

Many of the people who went to ground zero were NOT city, state, or federal employees. Also, what do you think is going to happen to their health insurance if they leave their jobs? Keep making excuses until you are blue in the face and maybe, after you pass out, you will wake up and concede that the GOP is ****ing over people who deserve help.[

Right, like the unions and insurance companies who do not want to pay up what they promised during years of premiums and dues collections. So they go down and ask congress for a bailout from us. And they prey on people like yourself, who still trust government, so long as the cause appears legit. And you do not even question 8 Billion of guaranteed tax money (as long as they claim it comes from greedy corporations) and vilify people like me for wanting a few answers.

[Burgold]

Right, like the unions and insurance companies who do not want to pay up what they promised during years of premiums and dues collections. So they go down and ask congress for a bailout from us. And they prey on people like yourself, who still trust government, so long as the cause appears legit. And you do not even question 8 Billion of guaranteed tax money (as long as they claim it comes from greedy corporations) and vilify people like me for wanting a few answers.

So, if this is how you feel about the insurance companies you were pro the single payer form of health reform, right? Cause clearly, you believe private union and insurance support is crooked, corrupt, and broken.

[Madison Redskin]

Right, like the unions and insurance companies who do not want to pay up what they promised during years of premiums and dues collections. So they go down and ask congress for a bailout from us. And they prey on people like yourself, who still trust government, so long as the cause appears legit. And you do not even question 8 Billion of guaranteed tax money (as long as they claim it comes from greedy corporations) and vilify people like me for wanting a few answers.

I said many of the first responders were not employed by government agencies and many of those that were could stand to lose their insurance if they lost their jobs. What do unions have to do with people who weren't or are no longer union members? What do insurance companies have to do with people that are uninsured or underinsured?

Are you actually arguing that the 9/11 first responder bill is a scam by unions and insurance companies that "preys" upon the feeble-minded? Okay. Please share the evidence that supports that theory. Or did you just invent that conspiracy theory based on little more than your imagination?

Finally, you've made it pretty clear your not looking for answers to legitimate questions. You're searching high and low for reasons that excuse what the GOP is doing and you're coming up dry.

[Thiebear]

the 7.4 - 8.11 billionhas short and long term goals in there with some not making any sense of the situation.

Seems to me with the staggering number of people and illness' if you want people to rush in and help again the Dems and Repubs should stop politicing on this issue. There really should be something that says: heres 4 billion for medical.

+++++++++++ Use this before a large percentage of you die. each year it will be like WWII vets. ++++++++++++++++

Now lets fund research projects etc. for the other 4.11 billion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or basically take the bill: Break it in half and put 4billion into this first:

(Sec. 101)Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC Program) within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to provide:

(1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers (including those who are federal employees) who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; and

(2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks. Includes within the WTC Program:

(1) medical monitoring, including clinical examinations and long-term health monitoring and analysis for individuals who were likely to have been exposed to airborne toxins that were released, or to other hazards, as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;

(2) an initial health evaluation, including an evaluation to determine eligibility for followup monitoring and treatment;

(3) followup monitoring and treatment and payment for all medically necessary health and mental health care expenses of individuals with a WTC-related health condition, including necessary prescription drugs;

(4) establishment of an outreach program to potentially eligible individuals concerning the benefits under this Act;

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 08:02 AM ----------

So, if this is how you feel about the insurance companies you were pro the single payer form of health reform, right? Cause clearly, you believe private union and insurance support is crooked, corrupt, and broken.

I believe his comment about (an you people that still trust government) would not affirm your assertion of what he is thinking.

[Fergasun]

I was reading up on this. The concern from the Republicans (specifically Coburn) is that there was money spent on this before, and we can't get an accounting on it. However, he said that they would pass a bill next year. I don't see why Congress should rush to pass a bill, *any bill*... I hate when Congress does that. So let them figure out a way to get bipartisan support to pass the bill.

[Kilmer17]

I was reading up on this. The concern from the Republicans (specifically Coburn) is that there was money spent on this before, and we can't get an accounting on it. However, he said that they would pass a bill next year. I don't see why Congress should rush to pass a bill, *any bill*... I hate when Congress does that. So let them figure out a way to get bipartisan support to pass the bill.

Stop with those stupid facts. We have good ol fashioned feigned librul outrage going on!