Republicans voting againt 9-11 responders health bill.

[Burgold]

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

Well, if one wanted to be cynical... that message could be read as

"We will not vote for the Dem Bill because that would show the Dems doing something good, but next year WE could take credit for it. So, next year we'll pass it."

I hope that's not what's really going on, but it does feel sadly possible. And I think the frustration you're hearing from both libs and conservs in this case feels genuine.

[Kilmer17]

Well, if one wanted to be cynical... that message could be read as

"We will not vote for the Dem Bill because that would show the Dems doing something good, but next year WE could take credit for it. So, next year we'll pass it."

I hope that's not what's really going on, but it does feel sadly possible. And I think the frustration you're hearing from both libs and conservs in this case feels genuine.

I personally want accountabilty for where the money went from the first bill (s) before another one is enacted.

I hate lame duck bills, and this years is so blatant and obvious is their nature and design it's repulsive.

[The Evil Genius]

Well, if one wanted to be cynical... that message could be read as

"We will not vote for the Dem Bill because that would show the Dems doing something good, but next year WE could take credit for it. So, next year we'll pass it."

I hope that's not what's really going on, but it does feel sadly possible. And I think the frustration you're hearing from both libs and conservs in this case feels genuine.

The GOP has used 9/11 as political capital for 9 years.

With the 10 year anniversary coming up in less than 10 months, you can sure as hell believe they will do everything in their power to remind people that they care. But it won't happen until we get closer to the anniversary.

[Burgold]

I personally want accountabilty for where the money went from the first bill (s) before another one is enacted.

I hate lame duck bills, and this years is so blatant and obvious is their nature and design it's repulsive.

The only reason I think this isn't a lame duck bill is because they've brought it up three previous times when they weren't lame ducks. Now, how and why the Dems themselves couldn't muster the support for this Bill when they had their gigantoid majorities is a very fair question and one I share... and I agree, accountablility would be nice. Is this a problem with this bill? I mean it has a mechanism to pay for it? Are there mechanisms written in to track and make sure the monies are used responsibly? I have no idea, do you?

In several respects, this is another sign of the Dem Congress failure. They are just so disorganized and unable to get out of each other's way. If they believed in this the Repubs should not have been able to stop them three times... even with the fillibuster. Heck, if they upped the heat on this during the election the Republicans would have probably wilted. So, right now, this bill failing is a Democratic failure.

What I wonder is if it is a failure because it's a bad bill or just because the Republicans are so much better at games of intrigue.

[oisn1]

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.

Yeah no rush, it's not like anyone will die if this doesn't pass. It's not like this bill is named after a man who died from complications caused during 9/11 while waiting for medical treatment he couldn't afford. Seriously, is this the conservative movement today? Money above lives, except rich lives. Rich people > money > rest of the scrubs. Sorry to say this, your post is vomit inducing. Here's some bipartisan support, let's support the heroes who had the balls to do what you couldn't do. Let's support the heroes who gave their lives to save others while we sat at home watching TV. Let's support the human lives who are suffering and dying right now for their heroism. Call your politicians and tell them to vote YES on this measure, and to honor our heroes above worrying about .2% of our budget (cost of this bill). How's that for bipartisan?

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 10:54 PM ----------

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

This is a good ol' librul plot to make us compassionate conservatives look bad. People aren't angry that heroes are being left to die for some Republican political scorecard. They aren't angry that conservatives value money over the lives of people who have proven their worth to society, yet will gladly spend money to give tax cuts to the rich. And they definitely aren't annoyed that "conservatives" post smug comments about our heroes dying while laughing about it.

When I grew up, I looked up to the 9/11 responders as true heroes who didn't have to brave the horror around them, but chose to do so anyways. They chose to risk life and limb to help people trapped and hurt by a terrorist attack. Now they are sick and dying and all you can say is that it's some kind of joke. Unfortunately, the only joke is you.

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

For those who haven't seen the Stewart segment, here it is:

Opening segment:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/worst-responders

Interview with four First Responders:

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

[Kilmer17]

Yeah no rush, it's not like anyone will die if this doesn't pass. It's not like this bill is named after a man who died from complications caused during 9/11 while waiting for medical treatment he couldn't afford. Seriously, is this the conservative movement today? Money above lives, except rich lives. Rich people > money > rest of the scrubs. Sorry to say this, your post is vomit inducing. Here's some bipartisan support, let's support the heroes who had the balls to do what you couldn't do. Let's support the heroes who gave their lives to save others while we sat at home watching TV. Let's support the human lives who are suffering and dying right now for their heroism. Call your politicians and tell them to vote YES on this measure, and to honor our heroes above worrying about .2% of our budget (cost of this bill). How's that for bipartisan?

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 10:54 PM ----------

This is a good ol' librul plot to make us compassionate conservatives look bad. People aren't angry that heroes are being left to die for some Republican political scorecard. They aren't angry that conservatives value money over the lives of people who have proven their worth to society, yet will gladly spend money to give tax cuts to the rich. And they definitely aren't annoyed that "conservatives" post smug comments about our heroes dying while laughing about it.

When I grew up, I looked up to the 9/11 responders as true heroes who didn't have to brave the horror around them, but chose to do so anyways. They chose to risk life and limb to help people trapped and hurt by a terrorist attack. Now they are sick and dying and all you can say is that it's some kind of joke. Unfortunately, the only joke is you.

The reaction by the left IS a complete joke. Ignoring the facts for why their is opposition IS a joke.

The demigoguing of the issue is disgusting but typical.

If you took the time to read and understand the reasons for the opposition to this bill in its current form at this particular time, you'd see how absurd your FEIGNED OUTRAGE really is.

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 11:10 PM ----------

A specific and concice explanation for the opposition.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0dd6b4cf-6b22-4337-9ca3-d6dc11545017

[oisn1]

The reaction by the left IS a complete joke. Ignoring the facts for why their is opposition IS a joke.

The demigoguing of the issue is disgusting but typical.

If you took the time to read and understand the reasons for the opposition to this bill in its current form at this particular time, you'd see how absurd your FEIGNED OUTRAGE really is.

Okay, I'll bite. As far as I've seen the opposition is solely based around money. It can't be against the fact that the responders need adequate health coverage. To put it even more simply, this bill will save or soothe lives at the cost of the money. So, lives or money. The question now becomes, do these lives deserve to have money used on them? I think everyone agrees that 9/11 responders have earned the right to get help from Americans, so that can't be issue. Again, lives that earned help vs the money to help them.

Now supposedly, there may be appropriations problems, but that didn't stop us from passing bill after bill to provide more funding for our troops in battle to get body armor. Why? Because they needed that help right away and they earned it with their actions. The same is true of these 9/11 responders and we (hopefully) agree with that.

What other opposition is there? Why rush a bill that lives depend on? That doesn't deserve a response. It failed in the past because it was attached to other bills that got filibustered. In response, it's now a standalone bill so there is nothing attached to it. That means you have a problem with spending money on 9/11 responders. If I'm missing something, please tell me.

You talk about demigoguing the issue... please explain? Are these people not heroes? Do they not deserve help after getting very sick for selflessly helping people around them? There is no feigned outrage or partisan games as the news has barely even covered it. Feigned outrage is the NYC mosque issue, where it made no difference to anyone's life. Real lives are at stake but now it's a joke.

[Kilmer17]

Please read the link I provided. It's very detailed and succinct.

And then ask this question- If this was SO important, why did the Dems wait til now to bring it up? Why not last year when they had 60 in the Senate? Why not during this year when their could have been time for actual debate and investigation before the vote?

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

FTR, this bill has been around for awhile now. Since February of 2009:

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

Not sure how things transpired to get to where we're at now.

[oisn1]

Please read the link I provided. It's very detailed and succinct.

And then ask this question- If this was SO important, why did the Dems wait til now to bring it up? Why not last year when they had 60 in the Senate? Why not during this year when their could have been time for actual debate and investigation before the vote?

I'll go through each and everyone of the large points this paper makes.

Provides overly generous funding, failing to acknowledge existing public and private benefits and past compensation

Overly generous is a subjective term. The price tag of the bill is not and has been researched to come up with a viable number. They don't pull these numbers out of a hat. In fact, that is why this bill is being brought up, due to the fact that the other benefits were not enough. Past compensation is irrelevant because it's just that, past compensation. If give troops in Afghanistan $1.0B for body armor and next year they ask for more because they are still getting shot at, do we tell them that they already received their allocation. This also talks about the fact that the government may decide not to cut off entitlements after ten years. If they want to continue entitlements they will have to bring up funding again in ten years. They can't extend funding without a vote. If that's a big issue, then mark your calenders and tell your congressmen in ten years to review if this entitlement is necessary.

Significant funding has already been allocated for 9/11 victims

Again, if it's been allocated then why are they asking for more? Why are responders still dying today due to illnesses where they don't have adequate coverage. If it's been allocated, then why is this an issue? A bill doesn't get up to a vote without merit and if you believe otherwise, you don't understand how Congress works. This paper references workman's compensation and disability insurance as services that do the same thing. The problem with these services is the fact that they cost a lot and WC and disability are notorious for being very slow and a hassle. They also don't cover all of the expenses and especially not all of the medication.

Creates a $3.2 billion Health Care Entitlement

I've already covered my thoughts on placing money over the lives of people. I think they deserve it, you don't. This is a non-issue and only shows the divide between overly-biased conservatives and everyone else (including normal conservatives). If you're mad about the number, then blame cancer for being such a destructive illness. Blame respiratory degradation and people's noses falling off due to illness for costing so much. Health care costs a lot. The paper throws out numbers like victims were given $400,000. Of course, and cancer treatment can cost in the millions. If you know anything about the medical industry, being sick costs a lot of money. $400,000 can work, if you stay relatively healthy. But if you need new medication or medication, that price jumps up fast. If you need more doctor's visits, that price jumps up. If you need surgery, that money is gone and you are in debt. Hence, there need to be more entitlements to help these people due to the increased cost of their illnesses.

Increases taxes through protectionist and counterproductive revenue increases

First, we are placing Excise tax on foreign manufacturers. But not any foreign manufacturers, no. We are only putting the tax on foreign manufacturers that are not in the World Trade Organization. Manufacturers in countries like Iran, Sudan, and Syria. This is apparently so evil and anti-business that we can't help our own citizens.

Continuing, we are Extenting the Travel Promotion Act Fees which states;

The United States strives to eliminate visa issuance fees

whenever possible; however, when a foreign government

imposes such fees on U.S. citizens for certain types of visas, the

United States will impose a "reciprocal" fee to nationals of that

country for similar-type of visas.

We are extending this fee until 2021. What is the fee? It's $14. This will supposedly deter tourism to the US, even though it's been in effect and won't run out until 2014 anyways.

Finally, we are extending H1-B Visa Fees which raised fees on H1-B and L-1 visas for those companies that have more than half their U.S.-based employees on such visas. That means, we are maintaining extra visa fees for companies that employ over 50% of their US-based force with legal immigrants. This will supposedly reduce immigration applications. Are you really going to argue this?

So, what's left? It all comes back to the money and not wanting to help them. That's it and I find it despicable.

Congress brought it up months ago in a large spending/budget bill (not sure), and the bill was filibustered. It was removed and propped up as a standalone bill so it couldn't be filibustered for any extraneous reasons. At the end of the day, the funding is legitimate and non-controversial, avoiding any taxation on Americans. The only problem comes down to money.

[Madison Redskin]

And then ask this question- If this was SO important, why did the Dems wait til now to bring it up? Why not last year when they had 60 in the Senate? Why not during this year when their could have been time for actual debate and investigation before the vote?

It appears that you probably don't think this is a serious issue that warrants national attention. Is that right?

Or do you agree that it's a serious issue, but you want to blame the Dems for not moving quickly enough to do something about it while exonerating the GOP for opposing it?

[Kilmer17]

It appears that you probably don't think this is a serious issue that warrants national attention. Is that right?

Or do you agree that it's a serious issue, but you want to blame the Dems for not moving quickly enough to do something about it while exonerating the GOP for opposing it?

I think it's a very serious issue. One that has been addressed in numerous other manners already. I think this particular BILL is nothing more than grandstanding and showboating by the Dems. And as such, I applaud and support GOP opposition to the timing and procedural ignorance being used.

If more Federal funding is needed, then we need to take the proper steps to allocate the funding. If this was such a dire emergency and speed was essential, then why did the Dems wait until the lame duck session to try and circumvent debate?

[Madison Redskin]

I think it's a very serious issue. One that has been addressed in numerous other manners already. I think this particular BILL is nothing more than grandstanding and showboating by the Dems. And as such, I applaud and support GOP opposition to the timing and procedural ignorance being used.

So it's a serious issue, but the first responders just don't deserve any more help.

If more Federal funding is needed, then we need to take the proper steps to allocate the funding.

"The proper steps to allocate the funding" .... you mean, like, pass a bill?

If this was such a dire emergency and speed was essential, then why did the Dems wait until the lame duck session to try and circumvent debate?

This issue, like many others, should have been fully dealt with long ago. So, the Dems should be blamed for not pushing this through sooner. That said, a delayed effort is better than outright opposition.

[Kilmer17]

So it's a serious issue, but the first responders just don't deserve any more help.

"The proper steps to allocate the funding" .... you mean, like, pass a bill?

This issue, like many others, should have been fully dealt with long ago. So, the Dems should be blamed for not pushing this through sooner. That said, a delayed effort is better than outright opposition.

You obviously havent actually read why those opposed to it are doing so. Take a moment and read the link provided above and stop getting your talking points from Jon Stewart.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The reaction by the left IS a complete joke. Ignoring the facts for why their is opposition IS a joke.

The demigoguing of the issue is disgusting but typical.

If you took the time to read and understand the reasons for the opposition to this bill in its current form at this particular time, you'd see how absurd your FEIGNED OUTRAGE really is.

---------- Post added December-21st-2010 at 11:10 PM ----------

A specific and concice explanation for the opposition.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0dd6b4cf-6b22-4337-9ca3-d6dc11545017

I read Coburn's explanation for his opposition, and its embarassing. Of course, 90% of what Coburn does is embarassing, but I digress.

[Kilmer17]

I read Coburn's explanation for his opposition, and its embarassing. Of course, 90% of what Coburn does is embarassing, but I digress.

Super duper. I think 100 percent of what the Dems do is embarrassing and harmful to our nation.

But I digress as well.

[Fergasun]

This is how politics works. I'd say most people, like a majority on this thread don't care about process or details. They want to see something done, and they don't care how it gets enacted. Regarding the tax debate, I don't think most people really cared if the two parties had to compromise, for a majority of Americans they just didn't want to see their taxes go up. I don't think it mattered if Obama got credit or the Republicans got credit.

In this case, the Republicans are trying to show some fiscal responsibility (which last time I check an overwhelming amount of voters wanted). I think Coburn lays out the case for why he believes this bill stinks, here it is succinctly:

If there is a real gap in coverage for real 9/11 heroes, we should authorize the existing discretionary program, appropriate the necessary funds, and continue to provide rigorous oversight to ensure effective use of the funds. Such an approach would be much more cost-effective and make far more sense than an open-ended entitlement that will cost taxpayers $10.4 billion.

So here's a question. Most people claim they want both parties to work together for the common good. If you want both parties to work together for the common good you would understand that there is some merit to the Republican objections. The way the Senate is supposed to work is that the parties get together and you have a vote that goes something like 80-20 (ie. the democrats will get 50% of GOP voting with them). The rules of the Senate and the filibuster are set up this way (I think this is a feature, some may disagree). The majority party knows this. Therefore there is some responsibility for the Democratic Senators (Schumer!) to work together and get something done.

I recently heard a speech by Henry Paulson, and he explained it like this, using bread as an analogy. Your party can push what it wants, without compromise and most likely you'll end up with nothing. So, it's better to compromise with the other party and get at least half a loaf of bread. He used this to discuss his agenda to reform Fannie and Freddie in 2006.

This is how our representative democracy works. So, I'm glad Republicans are voting against *this version* of the 9/11 responders bill. While Coburn most likely won't support any bill, consider he has the backing of the whole caucus. If its true this bill has been around in the Senate for a year, perhaps they would've worked on figuring out a way to get it passed rather than trying to "jam" the other party.

Partisanship and bipartisanship goes both ways. Certainly I would expect and demand that Democrats act the same way when they get a minority in the Senate. It was sad for me to watch the press conference and see the first responders used as a cheap PR tool.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Super duper. I think 100 percent of what the Dems do is embarrassing and harmful to our nation.

But I digress as well.

Great!

What is the "legitimate opposition" to this bill. Because reading over Coburn's crap, its filled with a bunch of buzz words that come down to one thing: cost. So, he thinks the cost is too much for a bunch of people that ruined their lives responding to 9-11, basically? No?

[@DCGoldPants]

I think its easier to follow the GOP process for this type of stuff and say "Why do the Republican's not want to support 9/11 First Responders?"

and leave it at that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think its easier to follow the GOP process for this type of stuff and say "Why do the Republican's not want to support 9/11 First Responders?"

and leave it at that.

Because they hate America, right? Or is it "they want the terrorists to win"?

[Kilmer17]

Great!

What is the "legitimate opposition" to this bill. Because reading over Coburn's crap, its filled with a bunch of buzz words that come down to one thing: cost. So, he thinks the cost is too much for a bunch of people that ruined their lives responding to 9-11, basically? No?

I get it TSF, any oppostion in your mind is going to be crap.

Coburn provides specific reasons. You might not agree with them, but they are clear and easy to see.

The Dems want to jam this through at the last minute without going through the usual procedures because they want the political benefit, not the actual bill. If they really wanted this Bill, it would have been done months ago if not last year.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2010 at 11:15 AM ----------

I think its easier to follow the GOP process for this type of stuff and say "Why do the Republican's not want to support 9/11 First Responders?"

and leave it at that.

Which is EXACTLY what the Dems are doing and the real reason they are going about this the way they are.

[Burgold]

The Dems want to jam this through at the last minute without going through the usual procedures...

You keep saying this, but this is the third time the Bill has come around and it's been working its way through Congress for over a year. So, this isn't a slapped together bill that no one's had time to review or put their input into. Where are you hearing this "last minute" stuff?

[@DCGoldPants]

Which is EXACTLY what the Dems are doing and the real reason they are going about this the way they are.

The Dems aren't doing a good enough job of it. They should have ads on TV with actual 9/11 Responders telling their story of that day, and how they are sick now. Then end with "I didn't think twice when it came to defending my country. Why won't the GOP support me?"

boom.....

[Fergasun]

If the "GOP process" was followed, ie. there was GOP buy-in we wouldn't have this discussion. To narrow in on Coburn is foolish. One man doesn't weld that much power, Coburn obviously has the backing of McConnell. Furthermore the Democratic party empowered Coburn by going forward with a bill that wasn't going to pass. This is how the Senate works, this is why it is different than the House. I don't know if the GOP has ratcheted this up another notch; but if they have I expect the Democrats to respond in kind when they get the minority. I hope so. This type of vigorous partisanship leads to compromise which leads to moderation... which is good in my eyes. When the GOP has power, it will be good that the Democrats block their bills (like how they blocked things like the privatization of social security).

Because it makes for easier news reporting; its simple to report it as "Heartless GOP blocks bill for 9/11 first responders." No, the GOP has no interest in blocking a bill, however they do think bills should be laid out and written in a responsible and transparent way. Again, I say people don't understand politics.

Regarding the specific opposition. It's just just "cost", its also "transparency", but its also the risk that these funds are disbursed to illegitimate or "double dipping" claims; which is called "fraud". I don't disagree this bill should passed; but it should be done in a way palatable to Americans. This type of nuance isn't ready-made for a news piece, so its easy to show clips of the guy calling out Coburn specifically. Obviously that guy has no idea how politics works, and Rep. Maloney and Schumer put him on the stage to make such a great sounding sound-byte. Kudos to them. People say "politics is bad", no "politics" will lead to a better bill!

---------- Post added December-22nd-2010 at 08:26 AM ----------

.. and as we have this debate I see this news item: Congress Poised To Expedite 9/11 Responders Bill Over GOP ObjectionsIf you're not able to change the bill to get 20 or so GOP votes you can always work with a few GOP members and make other changes to get their votes. Look for the right-wings to be up in arms over whichever GOP members break from them (Collins, Snowe, and Scott Brown could be candidates).

Republicans have blocked the bill in both the House and Senate over objections to its cost and financing mechanisms, but with a combination of tweaks and public pressure, Democrats say they've rounded up the 60 votes they'll need to break the filibuster.

Gibbs praised Jon Stewart for coverage on the "Daily Show", Shep Smith on FoxNews also went off about this bill.

Kudos to Schumer and whoever else was working on the bill in the Senate to make the acceptable tweaks (or maybe no tweaks were necessary).